On Sun, Feb 5, 2012 at 3:59 AM, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 24, 2011 at 03:56:58PM +0000, Simon Riggs wrote:
>> > Also, as far as I can see this patch usurps the page version field,
>> > which I find unacceptably short-sighted. Do you really think this is
>> > the last page layout change we'll ever make?
>> No, I don't. I hope and expect the next page layout change to
>> reintroduce such a field.
>> But since we're agreed now that upgrading is important, changing page
>> format isn't likely to be happening until we get an online upgrade
>> process. So future changes are much less likely. If they do happen, we
>> have some flag bits spare that can be used to indicate later versions.
>> It's not the prettiest thing in the world, but it's a small ugliness
>> in return for an important feature. If there was a way without that, I
>> would have chosen it.
> Have you considered the CRC might match a valuid page version number?
> Is that safe?
In the proposed scheme there are two flag bits set on the page to
indicate whether the field is used as a checksum rather than a version
number. So its possible the checksum could look like a valid page
version number, but we'd still be able to tell the difference.
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Simon Riggs||Date: 2012-02-05 20:42:47|
|Subject: Re: [BUGS] BUG #6425: Bus error in slot_deform_tuple|
|Previous:||From: Kohei KaiGai||Date: 2012-02-05 20:08:10|
|Subject: Re: pgsql_fdw, FDW for PostgreSQL server|