Re: SSI patch renumbered existing 2PC resource managers??
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
From: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
To: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com>, Kevin Grittner <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov>, drkp@csail.mit.edu, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Date: 2011-06-14T18:43:33Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Attachments
- /rtmp/pg_upgrade (text/x-diff)
Bruce Momjian wrote: > > This argument seems a tad peculiar, since the *entire* *point* of > > pg_upgrade is to push physical files from one installation into another > > even though compatibility isn't guaranteed. It is the program's duty to > > understand enough to know whether it can transport the cluster's state > > safely. Not to arbitrarily discard state because it might possibly not > > be transportable. > > Well, pg_upgrade succeeds because it does as little as necessary to do > the migration, relying on pg_dump to do much of the migration work at > the catalog level. pg_upgrade tries to be involved as little as > possible with the Postgres code so it doesn't have to be changed > regularly between major versions. > > The prepared transaction case seems ugly enough that we don't want > pg_upgrade to have to check every major release if anything changed > about the data stored in prepared transactions. This is the same reason > pg_upgrade doesn't transfer WAL files from the old cluster, just pg_clog > files (which rarely changes its format). I have applied the attached pg_upgrade patch to head and 9.1 to fail if prepared transactions are in the old or new cluster. -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. +