| From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>, Aidan Van Dyk <aidan(at)highrise(dot)ca>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Block-level CRC checks |
| Date: | 2009-12-01 20:58:44 |
| Message-ID: | 4B158384.3090709@dunslane.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>
>> OK, fair enough. My implication that only page formats were at issue
>> was off-base. My underlying point was that I think we have to be
>> prepared to write code that can understand old binary formats (on the
>> tuple, page, or relation level) if we want this to work and work
>> reliably. I believe that there has been much resistance to that idea.
>>
>
> We keep looking for cheaper alternatives. There may not be any...
>
>
>
Yeah. I think we might need to bite the bullet on that and start
thinking more about different strategies for handling page versioning to
satisfy various needs. I've been convinced for a while that some sort of
versioning scheme is inevitable, but I do understand the reluctance.
cheers
andrew
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Marko Kreen | 2009-12-01 21:08:06 | Re: Application name patch - v4 |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2009-12-01 20:41:43 | Re: Block-level CRC checks |