| From: | Selena Deckelmann <selena(at)chesnok(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-advocacy <pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: The case for version number inflation |
| Date: | 2013-02-28 00:48:48 |
| Message-ID: | CAN1EF+wqjcEz91udUQBQSgEmPmAoEEM10vr+HTThJNuckD4_mg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-advocacy |
On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 2:55 PM, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> wrote:
>
> And you're probably aware of the issue with Amazon Linux, where they
> don't distinguish between version 9.1 and 9.2 and thus corrupt people's
> databases.
>
This seems like a case to be made for Postgres to respond more elegantly to
this situation, possibly by converting blocks on the fly to the newer
version of the database for writes and being ok with reading previous
versions of blocks, or simply not writing data to the filesystem when the
versions don't match.
I'll not weigh in on the version number inflation. Seems like a lot of epic
bikeshedding.
-selena
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2013-02-28 00:54:35 | Re: The case for version number inflation |
| Previous Message | Jonathan S. Katz | 2013-02-28 00:24:10 | Re: The case for version number inflation |