| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: 16-bit page checksums for 9.2 |
| Date: | 2012-03-01 21:08:26 |
| Message-ID: | 17685.1330636106@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:
>> So a relation can't have some pages in Version 9.2, and other pages in
>> version 9.3? How will this work for 2TB tables?
> Not very well, but better than Tom's proposal to require upgrading the
> entire cluster in a single off-line operation.
WTF? That was most certainly not what *I* was proposing; it's obviously
unworkable. We need a process that can incrementally up-version a live
database and keep track of the minimum version present, at some
granularity smaller than "whole database".
All of this was discussed and hashed out about two years ago, IIRC.
We just haven't made any progress towards actually implementing those
concepts.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2012-03-01 21:27:25 | Re: Re: pg_stat_statements normalisation without invasive changes to the parser (was: Next steps on pg_stat_statements normalisation) |
| Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2012-03-01 20:49:23 | Re: COPY with hints, rebirth |