| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: pg_control is missing a field for LOBLKSIZE |
| Date: | 2014-06-18 18:55:10 |
| Message-ID: | 26065.1403117710@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:
> On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 8:46 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 07:12:16PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> What about comparing to the symbolic value LOBLKSIZE? This would make
>>> pg_upgrade assume that the old installation had been tweaked the same
>>> as in its own build. This ends up being the same as what you said,
>>> ie, effectively no comparison ... but it might be less complicated to
>>> code/understand.
>> OK, assume the compiled-in default is the value for an old cluster that
>> has no value --- yeah, I could do that.
> I'm not really sure why this is better than Bruce's original proposal, though.
The net behavior would be the same, but I thought it might be easier to
code by thinking of it this way. Or maybe it wouldn't --- it's just a
suggestion.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2014-06-18 19:09:06 | Re: [bug fix] Memory leak in dblink |
| Previous Message | Joe Conway | 2014-06-18 18:51:00 | Re: [bug fix] Memory leak in dblink |