On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 5:52 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 4:34 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>>> Easier for who? I don't care for the idea of code that has to cope with
>>> two page formats, or before long N page formats, because if we don't
>>> have some mechanism like this then we will never be able to decide that
>>> an old data format is safely dead.
>> Huh? You can drop support for a new page format any time you like.
>> You just decree that version X+1 no longer supports it, and you can't
>> pg_upgrade to it until all traces of the old page format are gone.
> And how would a DBA know that?
We'd add a column to pg_class that tracks which page version is in use
for each relation.
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Robert Haas||Date: 2012-03-01 13:45:26|
|Subject: Re: pg_upgrade --logfile option documentation|
|Previous:||From: Shigeru Hanada||Date: 2012-03-01 11:56:02|
|Subject: Re: pgsql_fdw, FDW for PostgreSQL server|