Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> writes:
> We don't need to use any flag bits at all. We add
> PG_PAGE_LAYOUT_VERSION to the control file, so that CRC checking
> becomes an initdb option. All new pages can be created with
> PG_PAGE_LAYOUT_VERSION from the control file. All existing pages must
> be either the layout version from this release (4) or the next version
> (5). Page validity then becomes version dependent.
> We can also have a utility that allows you to bump the page version
> for all new pages, even after you've upgraded, so we may end with a
> mix of page layout versions in the same relation. That's more
> questionable but I see no problem with it.
It seems like you've forgotten all of the previous discussion of how
we'd manage a page format version change.
Having two different page formats running around in the system at the
same time is far from free; in the worst case it means that every single
piece of code that touches pages has to know about and be prepared to
cope with both versions. That's a rather daunting prospect, from a
coding perspective and even more from a testing perspective. Maybe
the issues can be kept localized, but I've seen no analysis done of
what the impact would be or how we could minimize it. I do know that
we considered the idea and mostly rejected it a year or two back.
A "utility to bump the page version" is equally a whole lot easier said
than done, given that the new version has more overhead space and thus
less payload space than the old. What does it do when the old page is
too full to be converted? "Move some data somewhere else" might be
workable for heap pages, but I'm less sanguine about rearranging indexes
like that. At the very least it would imply that the utility has full
knowledge about every index type in the system.
> I'm now personally game on to make something work here for 9.2.
If we're going to freeze 9.2 in the spring, I think it's a bit late
for this sort of work to be just starting. What you've just described
sounds to me like possibly a year's worth of work.
regards, tom lane
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Simon Riggs||Date: 2011-12-22 00:06:49|
|Subject: Re: Page Checksums + Double Writes|
|Previous:||From: Noah Misch||Date: 2011-12-21 23:39:50|
|Subject: Re: RangeVarGetRelid()|