| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: pg_upgrade and rsync |
| Date: | 2015-01-27 14:50:59 |
| Message-ID: | 11643.1422370259@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 Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 1:48 PM, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>> I don't understand why that'd be better than simply fixing (yes, that's
>> imo the correct term) pg_upgrade to retain relfilenodes across the
>> upgrade. Afaics there's no conflict risk and it'd make the clusters much
>> more similar, which would be good; independent of rsyncing standbys.
> +1.
That's certainly impossible for the system catalogs, which means you
have to be able to deal with relfilenode discrepancies for them, which
means that maintaining the same relfilenodes for user tables is of
dubious value.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David Fetter | 2015-01-27 14:54:48 | Re: Parallel Seq Scan |
| Previous Message | Stephen Frost | 2015-01-27 14:36:58 | Re: pg_upgrade and rsync |