| From: | Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Jonah H(dot) Harris" <jonah(dot)harris(at)gmail(dot)com>, Zdenek Kotala <Zdenek(dot)Kotala(at)sun(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Block-level CRC checks |
| Date: | 2008-10-30 15:11:30 |
| Message-ID: | 87y706azj1.fsf@oxford.xeocode.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Joshua D. Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> Jonah H. Harris wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 10:33 AM, Zdenek Kotala <Zdenek(dot)Kotala(at)sun(dot)com> wrote:
>>> Please, DO NOT MOVE position of page version in PageHeader structure! And
>>> PG_PAGE_LAYOUT_VERSION should be bump to 5.
>>
>> Umm, any in-place upgrade should be capable of handling changes to the
>> page header. Of, did I miss something significant in the in-place
>
> I thought that was kind of the point of in place upgrade.
Sure, but he has to have a reliable way to tell what version of the page
header he's looking at...
What I'm wondering though -- are we going to make CRCs mandatory? Or set aside
the 4 bytes even if you're not using them? Because if the size of the page
header varies depending on whether you're using CRCs that sounds like it would
be quite a pain.
--
Gregory Stark
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
Ask me about EnterpriseDB's 24x7 Postgres support!
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2008-10-30 15:14:34 | Re: Block-level CRC checks |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2008-10-30 15:11:21 | Re: Block-level CRC checks |