On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 6:13 AM, Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote:
> 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.

Hm, we should rather remove the source code around PAGE_CONVERSION and
page.c at 9.6?


Masahiko Sawada

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to