| From: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Zdenek Kotala <Zdenek(dot)Kotala(at)Sun(dot)COM> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: pg_upgrade project status |
| Date: | 2009-01-27 19:37:00 |
| Message-ID: | 497F625C.7010608@enterprisedb.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Zdenek Kotala wrote:
> Set general value for heap or btree is possible but not optimal. For
> example If you have 5TB table and page layout changes do not affected
> this table but some small table needs perform a cleanup then 5TB will be
> processed in general approach, but in optimal variant it will be mark as
> prepared on upgrade automatically.
Only the space reservation of *new* inserts/updates need to be
integrated in the backend. In addition to that, we'll need a pre-upgrade
script that decides which tables need processing, and process them. This
is no different whether we accept some generic space reservation patch
now, or backpatch a more precise one later.
--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Joshua Brindle | 2009-01-27 19:37:07 | Re: 8.4 release planning |
| Previous Message | Dave Page | 2009-01-27 19:36:01 | Re: pg_upgrade project status |