Andreas Pflug wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > 
> > Is anybody working or considering to work on pg_upgrade, or is all this
> > hypothetical?  Our past history has seen lots of people offering to work
> > on pg_upgrade, and none has produced a working version.  Is it fair or
> > useful to impose restrictions on development just because it's remotely
> > possible that somebody is going to be motivated enough to consider
> > producing it?
> 
> Depends on the impact the restriction imposes. If 
> stability/scalability/functionality or so is affected, this sounds not 
> tolerable. If it's about not saving two bytes that have been spoiled for 
> ages before, or keeping a backward compatibility type, it appears 
> feasible to me.
> Changing on-disk structures at the start of the 8.2 dev cycle is a 
> guarantee that nobody will implement pg_upgrade for 8.2.

Let's go ahead and apply the patch.  While this change isn't very
significant, I bet there will be other changes in 8.2 where we will want
to change the database for a significant benefit, like reducing the
tuple header by 4 bytes by recompressing the four xid/cid fields back
into three.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610) 359-1001
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  13 Roberts Road
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster

Reply via email to