From: | Zdenek Kotala <Zdenek(dot)Kotala(at)Sun(dot)COM> |
---|---|
To: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: pg_upgrade project status |
Date: | 2009-01-27 20:03:46 |
Message-ID: | 1233086626.1475.62.camel@localhost |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Heikki Linnakangas píše v út 27. 01. 2009 v 21:37 +0200:
> Zdenek Kotala wrote:
> > Set general value for heap or btree is possible but not optimal. For
> > example If you have 5TB table and page layout changes do not affected
> > this table but some small table needs perform a cleanup then 5TB will be
> > processed in general approach, but in optimal variant it will be mark as
> > prepared on upgrade automatically.
>
> Only the space reservation of *new* inserts/updates need to be
> integrated in the backend. In addition to that, we'll need a pre-upgrade
> script that decides which tables need processing, and process them. This
> is no different whether we accept some generic space reservation patch
> now, or backpatch a more precise one later.
If it is possible then OK, but I little bit afraid about it.
Zdenek
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2009-01-27 20:04:08 | Re: 8.4 release planning |
Previous Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2009-01-27 20:03:25 | Re: pg_upgrade project status |