On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 07:05:15PM +0100, Petr Jelinek wrote: > >> Well, I don't want to rule it out either, but if we do a release to > >> which you can't pg_upgrade, it's going to be really painful for a lot > >> of users. Many users can't realistically upgrade using pg_dump, ever. > >> So they'll be stuck on the release before the one that breaks > >> compatibility for a very long time. > > > > Right. If we weren't setting tuple and tid bits we could improve it > > easily in PG 11, but if we use them for a single-change WARM chain for > > PG 10, we might need bits that are not available to improve it later. > > > > I thought there is still couple of bits available.
Yes, there are. The issue is that we don't know how we would improve it so we don't know how many bits we need, and my concern is that we haven't discussed the improvement ideas enough to know we have done the best we can for PG 10. -- 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. + + Ancient Roman grave inscription + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers