Re: Resurrecting pg_upgrade

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "Matthew T(dot) O'Connor" <matthew(at)zeut(dot)net>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Resurrecting pg_upgrade
Date: 2003-12-14 23:02:37
Message-ID: 3313.1071442957@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

"Matthew T. O'Connor" <matthew(at)zeut(dot)net> writes:
>> [ pg_upgrade won't be able to change user table representation ]

> How limiting is the above? Does this mean that pg_upgrade will be
> rendered invalid if there is an on-disk representation change? Do we
> think we will make it from 7.4 -> 7.5 without on-disk changes? Do we
> think at this point most upgrades will be without on-disk changes?

Per prior discussion, we will enforce some sort of limit on how often
the representation of user tables/indexes can be changed. The idea will
be to "batch" such changes so that you only have to do a dump/reload
every N major releases instead of every one. In other words, pg_upgrade
will work for most version upgrades but we reserve the right to
occasionally make releases where it doesn't work.

How large N will be in practice remains to be seen, of course, but I'd
expect something on the order of 4 or 5.

In theory pg_upgrade could be made to apply changes in user data
representation, but I'm unconvinced that such a process would be a big
improvement over dump/reload.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2003-12-14 23:09:33 Re: ORDER BY and DISTINCT ON
Previous Message Dennis Bjorklund 2003-12-14 22:40:09 Re: fork/exec patch