| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: sequences and pg_upgrade |
| Date: | 2016-08-30 18:15:20 |
| Message-ID: | 20160830181520.7cxbap6kvneixgew@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2016-08-30 08:46:48 -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> I was toying with a couple of ideas that would involve changing the
> storage of sequences. (Say, for the sake of discussion, removing the
> problematic/useless sequence_name field.)
I'd be quite interested to know what changes that are...
> I think the other solution mentioned in that thread would also work:
> Have pg_upgrade treat sequences more like system catalogs, whose format
> changes between major releases, and transferred them via the
> dump/restore route. So instead of copying the disk files, issue a
> setval call, and the sequence should be all set up.
+1.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Greg Stark | 2016-08-30 20:59:44 | Re: Pinning a buffer in TupleTableSlot is unnecessary |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2016-08-30 17:44:39 | Re: Pinning a buffer in TupleTableSlot is unnecessary |