| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Remove old-style VACUUM FULL (which was known for a little while |
| Date: | 2010-02-11 16:27:38 |
| Message-ID: | 10339.1265905658@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-committers pgsql-hackers |
Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> writes:
> You still have to perform a backup of the database prior to upgrade and
> that also must scan the whole database, so the overall time to upgrade
> will still vary according to database size. So I don't see any overall
> benefit, just risk, and I cited a similar situation where that risk has
> already materialized into damage for a user in at least one case.
You cited no such case; you merely hypothesized that it could happen.
As for the alleged risks involved, keeping the tqual support for MOVED
bits cannot create any data-loss risks that haven't existed right along
in every previous release. But depending on MOVED bits to be reliably
gone after a pg_upgrade would introduce a very obvious data loss risk
that wasn't there before, namely that pg_upgrade misses one.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2010-02-11 17:04:41 | Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Make standby server continuously retry restoring the next WAL |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2010-02-11 15:55:28 | Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Remove old-style VACUUM FULL (which was known for a little while |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kevin Grittner | 2010-02-11 16:27:43 | Re: TCP keepalive support for libpq |
| Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2010-02-11 16:24:05 | Re: a common place for pl/perlu modules |