On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 9:52 PM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.comwrote:
On 2013-04-12 12:14:24 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net writes:
On 04/12/2013 10:15 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
There's 0 chance of making that work, because the two databases
wouldn't
have
Sameer Thakur samthaku...@gmail.com writes:
The proposed tool tries to make migration faster for tables and indices
only by copying their binary data files.
There's 0 chance of making that work, because the two databases wouldn't
have the same notions of committed XIDs. You apparently don't
On 04/12/2013 10:15 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
Sameer Thakur samthaku...@gmail.com writes:
The proposed tool tries to make migration faster for tables and indices
only by copying their binary data files.
There's 0 chance of making that work, because the two databases wouldn't
have the same notions
Andrew Dunstan escribió:
On 04/12/2013 10:15 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
Sameer Thakur samthaku...@gmail.com writes:
The proposed tool tries to make migration faster for tables and indices
only by copying their binary data files.
There's 0 chance of making that work, because the two databases
Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net writes:
On 04/12/2013 10:15 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
There's 0 chance of making that work, because the two databases wouldn't
have the same notions of committed XIDs.
Yeah. Trying to think way outside the box, could we invent some sort of
fixup mechanism that
On 2013-04-12 12:14:24 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net writes:
On 04/12/2013 10:15 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
There's 0 chance of making that work, because the two databases wouldn't
have the same notions of committed XIDs.
Yeah. Trying to think way outside the box,
On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 9:44 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net writes:
On 04/12/2013 10:15 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
There's 0 chance of making that work, because the two databases wouldn't
have the same notions of committed XIDs.
Yeah. Trying to think
On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 10:22:38PM +0530, Pavan Deolasee wrote:
On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 9:44 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net writes:
On 04/12/2013 10:15 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
There's 0 chance of making that work, because the two
* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
Well, it wouldn't be that hard to replace XIDs with FrozenXID or
InvalidXID as appropriate, if you had access to the source database's
clog while you did the copying. It just wouldn't be very fast.
If you're doing that in a streaming method, it strikes
Stephen Frost sfr...@snowman.net writes:
* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
I suppose it would still be faster than a COPY transfer, but I'm not
sure it'd be enough faster to justify the work and the additional
portability hits you'd be taking.
The big win here over a binary COPY is
* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
Stephen Frost sfr...@snowman.net writes:
The big win here over a binary COPY is pulling through the indexes as-is
as well- without having to rebuild them.
[... lots of reasons this is hard ...]
I agree that it's quite a bit more difficult, to the point
11 matches
Mail list logo
