| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: pg_control is missing a field for LOBLKSIZE |
| Date: | 2014-06-17 23:12:16 |
| Message-ID: | 19478.1403046736@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
> On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 03:55:02PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> Can't you compare it to the historic default value? I mean, add an
>> assumption that people thus far has never tweaked it.
> Well, if they did tweak it, then they would be unable to use pg_upgrade
> because it would complain about a mismatch if they actually matched the
> old and new servers.
What about comparing to the symbolic value LOBLKSIZE? This would make
pg_upgrade assume that the old installation had been tweaked the same
as in its own build. This ends up being the same as what you said,
ie, effectively no comparison ... but it might be less complicated to
code/understand.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2014-06-17 23:12:39 | comparison operators |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2014-06-17 23:09:22 | Re: Atomics hardware support table & supported architectures |