Re: Page-level version upgrade (was: Block-level CRC checks)

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>, Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, decibel <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Aidan Van Dyk <aidan(at)highrise(dot)ca>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Page-level version upgrade (was: Block-level CRC checks)
Date: 2009-12-02 21:35:11
Message-ID: 603c8f070912021335s586bc65cjd42d85f892386555@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 3:48 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> writes:
>> This whole discussion is based on assumptions which do not match my
>> recollection of the old discussion. I would suggest people go back and
>> read the emails but it's clear at least some people have so it seems
>> people get different things out of those old emails. My recollection
>> of Tom and Heikki's suggestions for Zdenek were as follows:
>
>> 1) When 8.9.0 comes out we also release an 8.8.x which contains a new
>> guc which says to prepare for an 8.9 update.
>
> Yeah, I think the critical point is not to assume that the behavior of
> the old system is completely set in stone.  We can insist that you must
> update to at least point release .N before beginning the migration
> process.  That gives us a chance to backpatch code that makes
> adjustments to the behavior of the old server, so long as the backpatch
> isn't invasive enough to raise stability concerns.

If we have consensus on that approach, I'm fine with it. I just don't
want one of the people who wants this CRC feature to go to a lot of
trouble to develop a space reservation system that has to be
backpatched to 8.4, and then have the patch rejected as too
potentially destabilizing.

...Robert

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2009-12-02 21:40:05 Re: Catastrophic changes to PostgreSQL 8.4
Previous Message Marko Kreen 2009-12-02 21:30:12 Re: Patch: Remove gcc dependency in definition of inline functions