| From: | Andreas Pflug <pgadmin(at)pse-consulting(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Numeric 508 datatype |
| Date: | 2005-11-17 14:49:10 |
| Message-ID: | 437C9866.7050308@pse-consulting.de |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Andreas Pflug <pgadmin(at)pse-consulting(dot)de> writes:
>
>>Simon Riggs wrote:
>>
>>>Now we're into 8.2devel mode, its time to submit the previously
>>>discussed patch that:
>>>- reduces Numeric storage format by 2 bytes
>
>
>>This makes the often discussed binary upgrade impossible, so I wonder if
>>two bytes savings are worth the trouble.
>
>
> Unless someone actually steps forward and produces a working pg_upgrade
> in the 8.2 timeframe, this objection is moot.
Hm, so if this patch is applied now, and in 5 months or so somebody
implements pg_upgrade, this numeric storage patch would be rolled back?
OTOH, an upgrade mechanism that's compatible for future 8.3+ versions
only seems not too attractive.
A solution might be to keep the current numeric implementation under a
different name (deprecatednumeric or so), for backward compatibility
(this should apply to future storage format changes as well).
Regards,
Andreas
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Lincoln Yeoh | 2005-11-17 15:11:25 | Re: PREPARE TRANSACTION and webapps |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2005-11-17 14:26:14 | Re: Numeric 508 datatype |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2005-11-17 15:08:34 | Re: Optional postgres database not so optional in 8.1 |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2005-11-17 14:46:12 | Re: Optional postgres database not so optional in 8.1 |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2005-11-17 15:57:33 | Re: Numeric 508 datatype |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2005-11-17 14:26:14 | Re: Numeric 508 datatype |