| From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| 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: | 2013-05-28 22:38:11 |
| Message-ID: | 20130528223811.GB3203@momjian.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 03:06:13PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> 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.
Is this something we want on the TODO? I was not clear how to do with
without making the first page format special or wasting space on all the
other pages.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2013-05-28 22:39:10 | Re: Planning incompatibilities for Postgres 10.0 |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2013-05-28 22:36:45 | Re: Planning incompatibilities for Postgres 10.0 |