| From: | Zdenek Kotala <Zdenek(dot)Kotala(at)Sun(dot)COM> |
|---|---|
| To: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Prototype: In-place upgrade v02 |
| Date: | 2008-09-08 08:50:21 |
| Message-ID: | 48C4E74D.5040109@sun.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Heikki Linnakangas napsal(a):
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> I didn't see anything that looked like an immediate change in user table
>> contents, unless they used the "name" type; but what of relation forks?
>
> 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.
>
Does it mean, that if you "inject" old data file after catalog upgrade, then FSM
will works without any problem?
Zdenek
PS: I plan to review FSM this week.
--
Zdenek Kotala Sun Microsystems
Prague, Czech Republic http://sun.com/postgresql
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Zdenek Kotala | 2008-09-08 08:58:09 | Re: hash index improving v3 |
| Previous Message | Zdenek Kotala | 2008-09-08 08:44:53 | Re: Prototype: In-place upgrade v02 |