On 2015-01-27 10:20:48 -0500, Robert Haas wrote: > On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 9:50 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: > >> On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 1:48 PM, Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com> > >> wrote: > >>> I don't understand why that'd be better than simply fixing (yes, that's > >>> imo the correct term) pg_upgrade to retain relfilenodes across the > >>> upgrade. Afaics there's no conflict risk and it'd make the clusters much > >>> more similar, which would be good; independent of rsyncing standbys. > > > >> +1. > > > > That's certainly impossible for the system catalogs, which means you > > have to be able to deal with relfilenode discrepancies for them, which > > means that maintaining the same relfilenodes for user tables is of > > dubious value. > > Why is that impossible for the system catalogs?
Maybe it's not impossible for existing catalogs, but it's certainly complicated. But I don't think it's all that desirable anyway - they're not the same relation after the pg_upgrade anyway (initdb/pg_dump filled them). That's different for the user defined relations. Greetings, Andres Freund -- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
