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

Re: HOT patch - version 15

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "Pavan Deolasee" <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: "Gregory Stark" <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, "Bruce Momjian" <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, "Heikki Linnakangas" <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, "Florian Pflug" <fgp(dot)phlo(dot)org(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: HOT patch - version 15
Date: 2007-09-11 14:36:57
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-patches
"Pavan Deolasee" <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> I would actually think twice before even doing this because this would
> lead to complete change in heap page structure and stop people from
> upgrading to 8.3 without a complete dump/restore. I don't remember 8.3
> introduces any other significant change which already enforces that.

Then you don't remember far enough --- either the HeapTupleHeader change
or the varvarlena change would be enough to prevent that.  For that
matter, the pd_flags header field that the patch is already relying on
is new for 8.3.

Adding an xmin field might or might not be a good solution, but to
complain about it on compatibility grounds is silly.

			regards, tom lane

In response to


pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Simon RiggsDate: 2007-09-11 14:44:00
Subject: Re: Final Thoughts for 8.3 on LWLocking and Scalability
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2007-09-11 14:21:49
Subject: Re: Final Thoughts for 8.3 on LWLocking and Scalability

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