Re: pg_control is missing a field for LOBLKSIZE

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: pg_control is missing a field for LOBLKSIZE
Date: 2014-06-18 18:28:24
Message-ID: CA+TgmoZvjyNDninbEXswr2_pBGF1W9E_E11d9NR6S4JWhy2Y+A@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 8:46 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 07:12:16PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
>> > On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 03:55:02PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> >> Can't you compare it to the historic default value? I mean, add an
>> >> assumption that people thus far has never tweaked it.
>>
>> > Well, if they did tweak it, then they would be unable to use pg_upgrade
>> > because it would complain about a mismatch if they actually matched the
>> > old and new servers.
>>
>> What about comparing to the symbolic value LOBLKSIZE? This would make
>> pg_upgrade assume that the old installation had been tweaked the same
>> as in its own build. This ends up being the same as what you said,
>> ie, effectively no comparison ... but it might be less complicated to
>> code/understand.
>
> OK, assume the compiled-in default is the value for an old cluster that
> has no value --- yeah, I could do that.

I'm not really sure why this is better than Bruce's original proposal, though.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Kevin Grittner 2014-06-18 18:50:01 Re: idle_in_transaction_timeout
Previous Message Stephen Frost 2014-06-18 18:20:01 Re: How about a proper TEMPORARY TABLESPACE?