| From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, 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 23:01:38 |
| Message-ID: | 20140617230138.GG3666@momjian.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 03:55:02PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 12:28:46PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > > Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
> > > > Uh, I think pg_upgrade needs to check that they match too.
> > >
> > > Possibly. What do you think it should do when examining a pg_control
> > > version that lacks the field?
> >
> > Good question. I have existing cases where fields were removed, but not
> > ones that were added. As we have no way to query the old cluster's
> > value for LOBLKSIZE, I think I will just add code to compare them if
> > they _both_ exist.
>
> 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.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ Everyone has their own god. +
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2014-06-17 23:09:12 | Re: UPDATE SET (a,b,c) = (SELECT ...) versus rules |
| Previous Message | Andreas Karlsson | 2014-06-17 22:51:45 | Re: [REVIEW] psql tab completion for DROP TRIGGER/RULE and ALTER TABLE ... DISABLE/ENABLE |