Andreas Pflug wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> >
> > Is anybody working or considering to work on pg_upgrade, or is all this
> > hypothetical? Our past history has seen lots of people offering to work
> > on pg_upgrade, and none has produced a working version. Is it fair or
> > useful to impose restrictions on development just because it's remotely
> > possible that somebody is going to be motivated enough to consider
> > producing it?
>
> Depends on the impact the restriction imposes. If
> stability/scalability/functionality or so is affected, this sounds not
> tolerable. If it's about not saving two bytes that have been spoiled for
> ages before, or keeping a backward compatibility type, it appears
> feasible to me.
> Changing on-disk structures at the start of the 8.2 dev cycle is a
> guarantee that nobody will implement pg_upgrade for 8.2.
Let's go ahead and apply the patch. While this change isn't very
significant, I bet there will be other changes in 8.2 where we will want
to change the database for a significant benefit, like reducing the
tuple header by 4 bytes by recompressing the four xid/cid fields back
into three.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073