From: | Richard Huxton <dev(at)archonet(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Dhaval Shah <dhaval(dot)shah(dot)m(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: WAL file internals and why a 64 bit will not work on a 32 bit |
Date: | 2007-05-10 07:14:45 |
Message-ID: | 4642C665.3000709@archonet.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Dhaval Shah wrote:
> I do know that WAL files taken from a 64 bit OS will not work on a 32
> bit OS. However I have to prepare a technical answer to this.
>
> That is, questions like - why a WAL file from 64 bit will not work in
> 32 bit. Also does the WAL file differ for same architecture but
> different kind of partitions?
The WAL files track on-disk changes. That is, they represent the bytes
changed in individual blocks. So - both machines will need to have
*identical* on-disk formats for the WAL transfer to work.
It can be something as small as a configuration option chosen when
compiling PostgreSQL. For example - you can change between
floating-point and integer date-times at ./configure time and if you use
different settings on two identical machines then the WAL files will be
incompatible.
The obvious incompatibility I'd expect in a 32 to 64-bit changeover
would be alignment of data fields to 32 or 64-bit boundaries. I've not
checked, but I'd be surprised if there wasn't some difference there.
--
Richard Huxton
Archonet Ltd
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Dawid Kuroczko | 2007-05-10 07:16:21 | Re: Dangers of fsync = off |
Previous Message | Hannes Dorbath | 2007-05-10 07:08:53 | Re: In theory question |