From: | Zdenek Kotala <Zdenek(dot)Kotala(at)Sun(dot)COM> |
---|---|
To: | Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
Cc: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [PATCH] Space reservation v02 |
Date: | 2009-02-02 17:42:50 |
Message-ID: | 1233596570.2665.18.camel@localhost |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Gregory Stark píše v pá 30. 01. 2009 v 16:56 +0000:
> Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
>
> > Zdenek Kotala wrote:
> >> Bruce Momjian píše v pá 30. 01. 2009 v 10:41 -0500:
> >>> Well, I was thinking the new pg_class column would allow the upgrade to
> >>> verify the pre-upgrade script was run properly, but a flat file works
> >>> just as well if we assume we are going to pre-upgrade in one pass.
> >>
> >> Flat file or special table for pg_upgrade will work fine.
> >
> > Right, there's no difference in what you can achieve, whether you store the
> > additional info in a flat file, special table or extra pg_class columns. If you
> > can store something in pg_class, you can store it elsewhere just as well.
>
> Well having a column in pg_class does have some advantages. Like, you could
> look at the value from an sql session more easily. And if there are operations
> which we know are unsafe -- such as adding columns -- we could clear it from
> the server side easily.
I think, For pg_upgrade script is more useful to have possibility to
registry triggers on metadata change. It is general feature and after
that you can do what you want.
Zdenek
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2009-02-02 17:42:59 | Re: How to get SE-PostgreSQL acceptable |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2009-02-02 17:32:12 | Re: parallel restore |