On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 8:46 PM, Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote: > On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 07:12:16PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> writes: >> > On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 03:55:02PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote: >> >> Can't you compare it to the historic default value? I mean, add an >> >> assumption that people thus far has never tweaked it. >> >> > Well, if they did tweak it, then they would be unable to use pg_upgrade >> > because it would complain about a mismatch if they actually matched the >> > old and new servers. >> >> What about comparing to the symbolic value LOBLKSIZE? This would make >> pg_upgrade assume that the old installation had been tweaked the same >> as in its own build. This ends up being the same as what you said, >> ie, effectively no comparison ... but it might be less complicated to >> code/understand. > > OK, assume the compiled-in default is the value for an old cluster that > has no value --- yeah, I could do that.
I'm not really sure why this is better than Bruce's original proposal, though. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers