On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 4:58 AM, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > On Wed, 2010-07-28 at 14:22 -0700, Jeff Davis wrote: >> On Wed, 2010-07-28 at 15:37 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> > So nevermind that distraction. I'm back to thinking that fix1 is >> > the way to go. >> >> Agreed. >> >> It's uncontroversial to have a simple guard against corrupting an >> uninitialized page, and uncontroversial is good for things that will be >> back-patched. > > Still don't understand why we would not initialize such pages. If we're > copying a relation we must know enough about it to init a page.
Well, I don't see why we'd want to do that. As Jeff Davis pointed out, if someone asks to move a table to a different tablespace, changing the contents as we go along seems a bit off-topic. But the bigger problem is you haven't explained how you think we could determine what initialization ought to be performed. There's no index-AM API that says "initialize this page". I suppose we could invent one if there were some benefit, but we couldn't very well back-patch such a thing to 8.0. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise Postgres Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
