| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, drkp(at)csail(dot)mit(dot)edu, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: SSI patch renumbered existing 2PC resource managers?? |
| Date: | 2011-06-14 05:09:24 |
| Message-ID: | 17021.1308028164@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> No, pg_upgrade should not be unilaterally refusing that.
> Uh, isn't there some physical files in pg_twophase/ that stick around to
> keep prepared transactions --- if so, pg_upgrade does not copy them from
> the old cluster to the new one. I am also hesistant to do so because
> there might be data in there that isn't portable.
This argument seems a tad peculiar, since the *entire* *point* of
pg_upgrade is to push physical files from one installation into another
even though compatibility isn't guaranteed. It is the program's duty to
understand enough to know whether it can transport the cluster's state
safely. Not to arbitrarily discard state because it might possibly not
be transportable.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2011-06-14 05:15:20 | Re: pg_trgm: unicode string not working |
| Previous Message | Noah Misch | 2011-06-14 05:08:27 | Re: On-the-fly index tuple deletion vs. hot_standby |