Re: Further pg_upgrade analysis for many tables

From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
Cc: Ants Aasma <ants(at)cybertec(dot)at>, Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>
Subject: Re: Further pg_upgrade analysis for many tables
Date: 2012-11-12 21:22:33
Message-ID: 20121112212233.GD12157@alvh.no-ip.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Bruce Momjian escribió:

> It is possible that the poor 16k pg_upgrade value is caused by the poor
> 9.2 binary-upgrade number (189.38). Perhaps I need to hack up
> pg_upgrade to allow a 9.3 to 9.3 upgrade to test this.

Hmm? This already works, since "make check" uses it, right?

--

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Merlin Moncure 2012-11-12 21:26:08 Re: Proof of concept: standalone backend with full FE/BE protocol
Previous Message Alvaro Herrera 2012-11-12 21:14:59 Re: Further pg_upgrade analysis for many tables