| From: | Christoph Berg <myon(at)debian(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Collation versioning |
| Date: | 2019-10-11 10:48:14 |
| Message-ID: | 20191011104813.GA14059@msg.df7cb.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Re: Thomas Munro 2019-10-11 <CA+hUKGKDe98DFWKJoS7e4Z+Oamzc-1sZfpL3V3PPgi1uNvQ1tw(at)mail(dot)gmail(dot)com>
> While testing pg_upgrade scenarios I noticed that initdb-created
> collations' versions are not preserved, potentially losing track of
> information about corrupted indexes. That's a preexisting condition,
> and probably well understood, but it made me realise that if we switch
> to per-database object (for example: per index) version tracking as
> mentioned up-thread, then we should probably preserve that information
> across pg_upgrade.
That would make much sense, yes. The whole problem is already complex
enough, if we add another "but if you use pg_upgrade, you still need
to do the tracking manually" footnote, users will be very confused.
Christoph
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Nikolay Shaplov | 2019-10-11 10:54:25 | Re: [PATCH] Do not use StdRdOptions in Access Methods |
| Previous Message | Thomas Munro | 2019-10-11 10:41:45 | Re: Collation versioning |