From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | "Stephen R(dot) van den Berg" <srb(at)cuci(dot)nl> |
Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Aidan Van Dyk <aidan(at)highrise(dot)ca>, Roberto Mello <roberto(dot)mello(at)gmail(dot)com>, Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: pg_rawdump |
Date: | 2010-10-21 14:11:51 |
Message-ID: | 22587.1287670311@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Stephen R. van den Berg" <srb(at)cuci(dot)nl> writes:
> Robert Haas wrote:
>> and break on-disk compatibility just to make it easier to
> If it's inserted in the "special" area, it will not break any
> compatibility.
I'll tell you what I really don't like about this proposal: we discuss
some scheme or other for taking over the "special space" in heap pages
at least once a year. None of them have been particularly compelling
so far, but one may come along that is; especially given that we're now
trying to maintain on-disk compatibility across versions. So I think
the opportunity cost of assigning a use to that space is mighty high.
I don't find this idea important enough to justify foreclosing future
uses for the special space.
The real bottom line is this: if you care enough about your data to
be willing to expend a large amount of effort on manual recovery
attempts, why didn't you have a decent backup scheme in place?
There are way too many scenarios where you'll have no hope of doing
any such manual recovery anyway.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2010-10-21 14:17:09 | Re: Extensions, this time with a patch |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2010-10-21 13:57:42 | Re: UNION ALL has higher cost than inheritance |