Re: [HACKERS] PG_UPGRADE status

From: Bruce Momjian <maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Lamar Owen <lamar(dot)owen(at)wgcr(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] PG_UPGRADE status
Date: 1999-09-08 22:40:52
Message-ID: 199909082240.SAA27668@candle.pha.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> The issue with MVCC is that the state of a tuple isn't solely determined
> by what is in the disk file for its table; you have to also consult
> pg_log to see whether recent transactions have been committed or not.
> pg_upgrade doesn't import the old pg_log into the new database (and
> can't very easily, since the new database will have its own), so there's
> a problem with recent tuples possibly getting lost.
>
> OTOH, it seems to me that this was true in older releases as well
> (pg_log has always been critical data), so I guess I'm not clear on
> why pg_upgrade worked at all, ever...

At the end of pg_upgrade, there are the lines:

mv -f $OLDDIR/pg_log data
mv -f $OLDDIR/pg_variable data

echo "You may remove the $OLDDIR directory with 'rm -r $OLDDIR'."
exit 0

This is used to get the proper transaction status into the new
installation. Is the VACUUM added to pg_upgrade necessary?

--
Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle
maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 1999-09-09 00:27:33 Re: [HACKERS] PG_UPGRADE status
Previous Message Tom Lane 1999-09-08 22:40:37 Re: [HACKERS] Postgres Performance