On 2015-12-17 16:22:24 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 4:10 PM, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: > > On 2015-12-17 15:56:35 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > >> On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 3:44 PM, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > >> > For me, rewriting the visibility map is a new data loss bug waiting to > >> > happen. I am worried that the group is not taking seriously the potential > >> > for catastrophe here. > >> > >> FWIW, I'm following this line and merging the vm file into a single > >> unit looks like a ticking bomb. > > > > And what are those risks? > > Incorrect vm file rewrite after a pg_upgrade run.
If we can't manage to rewrite a file, replacing a binary b1 with a b10, then we shouldn't be working on a database. And if we screw up, recovery i is an rm *_vm away. I can't imagine that this is going to be the actually complicated part of this feature. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
