| From: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Zdenek Kotala <Zdenek(dot)Kotala(at)Sun(dot)COM>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Prototype: In-place upgrade v02 |
| Date: | 2008-09-07 17:55:12 |
| Message-ID: | 48C41580.6080901@enterprisedb.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Gregory Stark wrote:
> Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
>> Relation forks didn't change anything inside relation files, so no scanning of
>> relations is required because of that. Neither will the FSM rewrite. Not sure
>> about DSM yet.
>
> And just to confirm -- they don't change the name of the files the postmaster
> expects to find in its data directory, right?
Right. But it wouldn't be a big issue anyway. Renaming would be quick
regardless of the relation sizes, FSM and DSM will introduce new files,
though, that probably need to be created as part of the upgrade, but
again they're not very big.
--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2008-09-07 17:56:23 | Re: Noisy CVS updates |
| Previous Message | Gregory Stark | 2008-09-07 17:45:37 | Re: Prototype: In-place upgrade v02 |