From: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Zhihong Yu <zyu(at)yugabyte(dot)com> |
Cc: | Greg Nancarrow <gregn4422(at)gmail(dot)com>, Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Hou, Zhijie" <houzj(dot)fnst(at)cn(dot)fujitsu(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com>, David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Tsunakawa, Takayuki" <tsunakawa(dot)takay(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, "Tang, Haiying" <tanghy(dot)fnst(at)cn(dot)fujitsu(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: Parallel INSERT (INTO ... SELECT ...) |
Date: | 2021-03-07 02:30:52 |
Message-ID: | CAA4eK1LRgeWYELnu6g_k3JCD39VO6pRVNy50f-osjOMkkxXsxA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, Mar 6, 2021 at 9:13 PM Zhihong Yu <zyu(at)yugabyte(dot)com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
> Does CATALOG_VERSION_NO need to be bumped (introduction of partitionOids field) ?
>
Good question. I usually update CATALOG_VERSION_NO when the patch
changes any of the system catalogs. This is what is also mentioned in
catversion.h. See the following text in that file: "The catalog
version number is used to flag incompatible changes in the PostgreSQL
system catalogs. Whenever anyone changes the format of a system
catalog relation, or adds, deletes, or modifies standard
catalog entries in such a way that an updated backend wouldn't work
with an old database (or vice versa), the catalog version number
should be changed.".
I might be missing something here but why you think that due to
partitionOids field (in plannedstmt or at another place) we need to
update CATALOG_VERSION_NO?
Anyway, thanks for bringing this up.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2021-03-07 02:32:56 | Re: Tablesync early exit |
Previous Message | Peter Smith | 2021-03-07 02:04:57 | Re: [HACKERS] logical decoding of two-phase transactions |