Re: pg_control is missing a field for LOBLKSIZE - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Bruce Momjian
Subject Re: pg_control is missing a field for LOBLKSIZE
Date
Msg-id 20140618004600.GH3666@momjian.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: pg_control is missing a field for LOBLKSIZE  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: pg_control is missing a field for LOBLKSIZE  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
Re: pg_control is missing a field for LOBLKSIZE  (Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 07:12:16PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <bruce@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.

--  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
 + Everyone has their own god. +



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Andreas Karlsson
Date:
Subject: Re: Re: [REVIEW] psql tab completion for DROP TRIGGER/RULE and ALTER TABLE ... DISABLE/ENABLE
Next
From: Peter Geoghegan
Date:
Subject: Re: btreecheck extension