Re: Planning incompatibilities for Postgres 10.0

From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
Cc: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Planning incompatibilities for Postgres 10.0
Date: 2013-05-27 19:06:13
Message-ID: 20130527190612.GU15045@eldon.alvh.no-ip.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Bruce Momjian wrote:

> OK, I have added a section to the TODO list for this:
>
> Desired changes that would prevent upgrades with pg_upgrade
>
> 32-bit page checksums
>
> Are there any others?

I would have each data segment be self-identifying, i.e. have a magic
number at the beginning of the file and the relation OID, some fork
identification and the segment number somewhere -- probably the special
space of the first page.

--
Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jaime Casanova 2013-05-27 21:50:40 Re: New committers
Previous Message Tom Lane 2013-05-27 18:09:05 Re: Planning incompatibilities for Postgres 10.0