On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 04:39:15PM +0900, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote: > > I still agree with this plugin approach, but I felt it's still > > complicated a bit, and I'm concerned that patch size has been > > increased. > > Please give me feedbacks. > > Yeah, I feel the same. What make it worse, the plugin mechanism > will get further complex if we make it more flexible for possible > usage as I proposed above. It is apparently too complicated for > deciding whether to load *just one*, for now, converter > function. And no additional converter is in sight. > > I incline to pull out all the plugin stuff of pg_upgrade. We are > so prudent to make changes of file formats so this kind of events > will happen with several-years intervals. The plugin mechanism > would be valuable if we are encouraged to change file formats > more frequently and freely by providing it, but such situation > absolutely introduces more untoward things..
I agreed on ripping out the converter plugin ability of pg_upgrade. Remember pg_upgrade was originally written by EnterpriseDB staff, and I think they expected their closed-source fork of Postgres might need a custom page converter someday, but it never needed one, and at this point I think having the code in there is just making things more complex. I see _no_ reason for community Postgres to use a plugin converter because we are going to need that code for every upgrade from pre-9.6 to 9.6+, so why not just hard-code in the functions we need. We can remove it once 9.5 is end-of-life. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. + + Roman grave inscription + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
