From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu>, Sergey Konoplev <gray(dot)ru(at)gmail(dot)com>, Sergey Burladyan <eshkinkot(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: pg_upgrade and epoch |
Date: | 2014-09-11 21:00:25 |
Message-ID: | 20140911210025.GG17294@awork2.anarazel.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2014-09-11 16:58:12 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
> > On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 02:24:17AM +0100, Greg Stark wrote:
> >> I think the reason nobody's responding is because nobody has anything
> >> significant to add. It's a behavior change from not-working to
> >> working. Why wouldn't it be backpatched?
>
> > OK, Greg seems to be passionate about this. Does anyone _object_ to my
> > back-patching the epoch preservation fix through 9.3. Tom?
>
> Not I. This is a data-loss bug fix, no? Why would we not back-patch it?
Also, what possible reason could there be for preservation to be
problematic? Epoch overflow maybe :P
Greetings,
Andres Freund
--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2014-09-11 21:23:54 | Re: pg_dump refactor patch to remove global variables |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2014-09-11 20:58:12 | Re: pg_upgrade and epoch |