Re: pg_upgrade and rsync
От | Robert Haas |
---|---|
Тема | Re: pg_upgrade and rsync |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CA+TgmoYJBArNKY82KZFAJU4k0SM=bxsOj8bf1rkqL2un3EOhug@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: pg_upgrade and rsync (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: pg_upgrade and rsync
Re: pg_upgrade and rsync |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 9:50 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes: >> On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 1:48 PM, Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >>> I don't understand why that'd be better than simply fixing (yes, that's >>> imo the correct term) pg_upgrade to retain relfilenodes across the >>> upgrade. Afaics there's no conflict risk and it'd make the clusters much >>> more similar, which would be good; independent of rsyncing standbys. > >> +1. > > That's certainly impossible for the system catalogs, which means you > have to be able to deal with relfilenode discrepancies for them, which > means that maintaining the same relfilenodes for user tables is of > dubious value. Why is that impossible for the system catalogs? -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: