Summary of plans to avoid the annoyance of Freezing

From: martinwerfel12 <martinwerfel12(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Summary of plans to avoid the annoyance of Freezing
Date: 2018-07-24 07:52:06
Message-ID: 1532418726167-0.post@n3.nabble.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

* My vote is that we should try to get freeze maps into 9.6 - that seems
* More realistic given that we have a patch right now. Yes, it might end
* Up being superfluous churn, but it's rather localized. I think around
*We’ve put off significant incremental improvements off with the promise
*Of more radical stuff too often.

Superfluous churn in the code isn't too bad. But superfluous churn in
Data formats might be a bit scarier. Would we be able to handle
pg_upgrade from a database with or without a freeze map? Would you have?
To upgrade once to add the freeze map then again to remove it?

Surely we wouldn't introduce and remove freeze-maps between minor versions.
So either it is a new major version, in which case you would be doing the
upgrade anyway, or they would be added and then removed again all within one
development cycle; and running unreleased code always has on-disk
incompatibility churn. Or am I missing your point here?

Cheers,
Martin

-----
Kamagra
--
Sent from: http://www.postgresql-archive.org/PostgreSQL-hackers-f1928748.html

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Chris Travers 2018-07-24 07:54:38 Documenting that queries can be run over replication protocol
Previous Message Masahiko Sawada 2018-07-24 07:47:41 Re: [HACKERS] Restricting maximum keep segments by repslots