Re: Further pg_upgrade analysis for many tables

From: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Ants Aasma <ants(at)cybertec(dot)at>, Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>
Subject: Re: Further pg_upgrade analysis for many tables
Date: 2012-11-24 18:20:14
Message-ID: 20121124182014.GF9382@momjian.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 06:14:59PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Bruce Momjian escribió:
>
> > --- 17,24 ----
> >
> > static void transfer_single_new_db(pageCnvCtx *pageConverter,
> > FileNameMap *maps, int size);
> > ! static int transfer_relfile(pageCnvCtx *pageConverter, FileNameMap *map,
> > ! const char *suffix);
>
> Uh, does this code assume that forks other than the main one are not
> split in segments? I think that's a bug, is it not?

Actually, the segment scanning now happens inside transfer_relfile().

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Kohei KaiGai 2012-11-24 19:29:36 Re: [v9.3] Extra Daemons (Re: elegant and effective way for running jobs inside a database)
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2012-11-24 18:16:05 pg_upgrade and visibility map files