Re: pg_upgrade and epoch

From: Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu>, Sergey Konoplev <gray(dot)ru(at)gmail(dot)com>, Sergey Burladyan <eshkinkot(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: pg_upgrade and epoch
Date: 2014-09-11 21:00:25
Message-ID: 20140911210025.GG17294@awork2.anarazel.de
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2014-09-11 16:58:12 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
> > On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 02:24:17AM +0100, Greg Stark wrote:
> >> I think the reason nobody's responding is because nobody has anything
> >> significant to add. It's a behavior change from not-working to
> >> working. Why wouldn't it be backpatched?
>
> > OK, Greg seems to be passionate about this. Does anyone _object_ to my
> > back-patching the epoch preservation fix through 9.3. Tom?
>
> Not I. This is a data-loss bug fix, no? Why would we not back-patch it?

Also, what possible reason could there be for preservation to be
problematic? Epoch overflow maybe :P

Greetings,

Andres Freund

--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alvaro Herrera 2014-09-11 21:23:54 Re: pg_dump refactor patch to remove global variables
Previous Message Tom Lane 2014-09-11 20:58:12 Re: pg_upgrade and epoch