On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 4:08 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: >>> So a relation can't have some pages in Version 9.2, and other pages in >>> version 9.3? How will this work for 2TB tables? > >> Not very well, but better than Tom's proposal to require upgrading the >> entire cluster in a single off-line operation. > > WTF? That was most certainly not what *I* was proposing; it's obviously > unworkable. We need a process that can incrementally up-version a live > database and keep track of the minimum version present, at some > granularity smaller than "whole database". > > All of this was discussed and hashed out about two years ago, IIRC. > We just haven't made any progress towards actually implementing those > concepts.
I am now officially confused. I thought you and Heikki were arguing about 24 hours ago that we needed to shut down the old database, run a pre-upgrade utility to convert all the pages, run pg_upgrade, and then bring the new database on-line; and that, further, you were arguing that we should not support multiple page versions. Now you seem to be arguing the exact opposite - namely, that we should support multiple page versions, and that the conversion should be done on-line. So, to reiterate, I'm lost. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers