| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Kevin Grittner <kevin(dot)grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, david <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, aidan <aidan(at)highrise(dot)ca>, stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: 16-bit page checksums for 9.2 |
| Date: | 2012-02-29 21:34:27 |
| Message-ID: | 8353.1330551267@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 2:33 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
> <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
>> The utility would run in the old cluster before upgrading, so the the flag
>> would have to be present in the old version. pg_upgrade would check that the
>> flag is set, refusing to upgrade if it isn't, with an error like "please run
>> pre-upgrade utility first".
> I find that a pretty unappealing design; it seems to me it'd be much
> easier to make the new cluster cope with everything.
Easier for who? I don't care for the idea of code that has to cope with
two page formats, or before long N page formats, because if we don't
have some mechanism like this then we will never be able to decide that
an old data format is safely dead.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2012-02-29 21:53:18 | Re: 16-bit page checksums for 9.2 |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2012-02-29 21:34:24 | Re: pg_upgrade --logfile option documentation |