Tom Lane wrote: > Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com> writes: > > On 13.06.2011 21:31, Tom Lane wrote: > >> So far as I can tell, that breaks pg_upgrade (if there are any open > >> prepared transactions) for no redeeming social benefit. > > > Surely pg_upgrade can't work anyway if there's any open prepared > > transactions in the database. We're not going to guarantee to keep all > > the data structures we write in two-phase state files unchanged over > > major releases. If pg_upgrade is not checking for prepared transcations > > at the moment, such a check should probably should be added. > > No, pg_upgrade should not be unilaterally refusing that. The correct > way to deal with this consideration is to change the TWOPHASE_MAGIC > number when we make a change in on-disk 2PC state. Which wasn't done > in the SSI patch. We can either change that now, or undo the > unnecessary change in existing RM IDs. I vote for the latter.
Uh, isn't there some physical files in pg_twophase/ that stick around to keep prepared transactions --- if so, pg_upgrade does not copy them from the old cluster to the new one. I am also hesistant to do so because there might be data in there that isn't portable. I like the idea of adding a check, I assume by reading pg_prepared_xact(). -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
