Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Numeric 508 datatype

From: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Andreas Pflug <pgadmin(at)pse-consulting(dot)de>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Numeric 508 datatype
Date: 2005-11-20 17:43:42
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-generalpgsql-hackerspgsql-patches
Andreas Pflug wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > 
> > Is anybody working or considering to work on pg_upgrade, or is all this
> > hypothetical?  Our past history has seen lots of people offering to work
> > on pg_upgrade, and none has produced a working version.  Is it fair or
> > useful to impose restrictions on development just because it's remotely
> > possible that somebody is going to be motivated enough to consider
> > producing it?
> Depends on the impact the restriction imposes. If 
> stability/scalability/functionality or so is affected, this sounds not 
> tolerable. If it's about not saving two bytes that have been spoiled for 
> ages before, or keeping a backward compatibility type, it appears 
> feasible to me.
> Changing on-disk structures at the start of the 8.2 dev cycle is a 
> guarantee that nobody will implement pg_upgrade for 8.2.

Let's go ahead and apply the patch.  While this change isn't very
significant, I bet there will be other changes in 8.2 where we will want
to change the database for a significant benefit, like reducing the
tuple header by 4 bytes by recompressing the four xid/cid fields back
into three.

  Bruce Momjian                        |
  pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us               |  (610) 359-1001
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  13 Roberts Road
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Martijn van OosterhoutDate: 2005-11-20 18:05:57
Subject: Re: Returning multiple result sets
Previous:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2005-11-20 17:26:18
Subject: Re: MERGE vs REPLACE

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Andrew DunstanDate: 2005-11-20 20:30:15
Subject: Re: Numeric 508 datatype
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2005-11-20 16:59:47
Subject: Re: BUG #2056: to_char no long takes time as input?

pgsql-general by date

Next:From: Andrus MoorDate: 2005-11-20 19:13:36
Subject: Why pgAdmin III guru suggests VACUUM in 8.1
Previous:From: Tino WildenhainDate: 2005-11-20 16:55:50
Subject: Re: Mambo (CMS) & PostgreSQL

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group