On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 3:28 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: >> On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 2:55 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >>> The net behavior would be the same, but I thought it might be easier to >>> code by thinking of it this way. Or maybe it wouldn't --- it's just a >>> suggestion. > >> Well, the difference is that if we just don't check it, there can >> never be an error. Basically, it's the user's job to DTRT. If we >> check it against some semi-arbitrary value, we'll catch the case where >> the old cluster was modified with a custom setting and the new one was >> not - but couldn't we also get false positives under obscure >> circumstances? > > Huh? What we'd be checking is the LOBLKSIZE compiled into pg_upgrade > versus that stored into pg_control by the new postmaster. If those > are different, then pg_upgrade didn't come from the same build as the > new postmaster, which is already a pretty hazardous situation (especially > if the user is fooling with low-level stuff like this).
OK, I agree that checking that wouldn't hurt anything. -- 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
