Tom Lane wrote: > Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > OK, taking up the pg_upgrade banner, I think there are two things > > missing from the current code: > > > 1) schema awareness -- easily fixed with some code > > 2) need to creat clog files to match incremented xid > > > I can do 1, and I think Tom can help me with 2. > > I was just now wondering whether we really need to do that at all. > We're already vacuuming the user tables before we bring 'em over. > What if we VACUUM FREEZE them instead? Then there are *no* xids of > interest in the tables being brought over, and no need to screw around > with the xid counter in the new installation. That in turn would mean > no need to mess with its pg_clog files. I think we'd still need to > advance the xlog position past the old installation's xlog end, but we > have the tool for that (pg_resetxlog) already.
VACUUM FREEZE. Interesting idea. Did we have that in 7.2? I never thought of using it. Good idea. Why do we have to do WAL? Do we have WAL log id's in the tuple headers? I don't remember. I don't see them in a quick look. > > Also, I think we make index format changes more frequently that Tom > > recollects. Tom? > > Oh? Name one... not that they'd be a critical problem anyway, as we > could easily reconstruct indexes via REINDEX rather than moving them > over, any time we made such a change. I remember fixing index problems, and asking folks to rebuild indexes _after_ we fixed them, so I thought they had a new format. I guess they were just broken indexes that had to be rebuilt to get the fix. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us [EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org