| From: | Bruce Momjian <maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> | 
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> | 
| Cc: | Lamar Owen <lamar(dot)owen(at)wgcr(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org | 
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] PG_UPGRADE status | 
| Date: | 1999-09-08 22:40:52 | 
| Message-ID: | 199909082240.SAA27668@candle.pha.pa.us | 
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email | 
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers | 
> The issue with MVCC is that the state of a tuple isn't solely determined
> by what is in the disk file for its table; you have to also consult
> pg_log to see whether recent transactions have been committed or not.
> pg_upgrade doesn't import the old pg_log into the new database (and
> can't very easily, since the new database will have its own), so there's
> a problem with recent tuples possibly getting lost.
> 
> OTOH, it seems to me that this was true in older releases as well
> (pg_log has always been critical data), so I guess I'm not clear on
> why pg_upgrade worked at all, ever...
At the end of pg_upgrade, there are the lines:
	mv -f $OLDDIR/pg_log data
	mv -f $OLDDIR/pg_variable data
	
	echo "You may remove the $OLDDIR directory with 'rm -r $OLDDIR'."
	exit 0
This is used to get the proper transaction status into the new
installation.  Is the VACUUM added to pg_upgrade necessary?
-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://www.op.net/~candle
  maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us            |  (610) 853-3000
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 1999-09-09 00:27:33 | Re: [HACKERS] PG_UPGRADE status | 
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 1999-09-08 22:40:37 | Re: [HACKERS] Postgres Performance |