Re: 16-bit page checksums for 9.2

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: 16-bit page checksums for 9.2
Date: 2012-03-01 18:28:52
Message-ID: CA+TgmoZ_wNDuVb3XDUAU68np6SWqj5tegOJRXccvoJLc86WA9Q@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 12:42 PM, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> wrote:
>>> And how would a DBA know that?
>>
>> We'd add a column to pg_class that tracks which page version is in use
>> for each relation.
>
> So a relation can't have some pages in Version 9.2, and other pages in
> version 9.3?  How will this work for 2TB tables?

Not very well, but better than Tom's proposal to require upgrading the
entire cluster in a single off-line operation.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Josh Berkus 2012-03-01 18:40:44 Re: 16-bit page checksums for 9.2
Previous Message Josh Berkus 2012-03-01 17:42:43 Re: 16-bit page checksums for 9.2