| From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Remaining beta blockers |
| Date: | 2013-05-02 16:35:17 |
| Message-ID: | 20130502163517.GE24822@momjian.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 12:02:59PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 10:40 AM, Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com> wrote:
> >>> What is a real problem or risk with using this mechanism until we
> >>> engineer something better? What problems with converting to a
> >>> later major release does anyone see?
> >>
> >> Well, it's a pg_upgrade hazard, if nothing else, isn't it?
> >
> > I don't think so. What do you see as a problem?
>
> pg_upgrade only handles changes in catalog state, not on-disk
> representation. If the on-disk representation of an non-scannable
> view might change in a future release, it's a pg_upgrade hazard.
Yes, pg_upgrade is never going to write to data pages as that would be
slow and prevent the ability to roll back to the previous cluster on
error.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David Fetter | 2013-05-02 16:52:38 | Re: GSOC13 proposal - extend RETURNING syntax |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2013-05-02 16:28:53 | Re: GSOC13 proposal - extend RETURNING syntax |