| From: | David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: HeapTupleSatisfiesToast() busted? (was atomic pin/unpin causing errors) |
| Date: | 2016-05-17 17:15:58 |
| Message-ID: | 20160517171558.GA6029@fetter.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 02:06:19PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Sooner or later we are going to need to go to 8-byte TOAST object
> identifiers. Maybe we should think about doing that sooner not
> later rather than trying to invent some anti-wraparound solution
> here.
Yay! Is there any lift in separating TOAST OIDs from the rest?
> In principle, you could support existing TOAST tables and pointers
> containing 4-byte IDs in parallel with the new ones.
> Not sure how pg_upgrade would handle it exactly though.
This is yet another reason we should get away from in-place binary
upgrade as a strategy. It's always been fragile, and it's only ever
been justifiable on grounds of hardware economics that no longer
obtain.
Cheers,
David.
--
David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> http://fetter.org/
Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter
Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david(dot)fetter(at)gmail(dot)com
Remember to vote!
Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2016-05-17 17:22:42 | Re: Declarative partitioning |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2016-05-17 17:05:38 | Re: A couple of cosmetic changes around shared memory code |