Re: pg_upgrade and epoch - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Bruce Momjian
Subject Re: pg_upgrade and epoch
Date
Msg-id 20140909150535.GA20483@momjian.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: pg_upgrade and epoch  (Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>)
Responses Re: pg_upgrade and epoch
List pgsql-hackers
On Sat, Sep  6, 2014 at 09:30:06AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Fri, Sep  5, 2014 at 07:35:42PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > On Sat, Sep  6, 2014 at 12:26:55AM +0100, Greg Stark wrote:
> > > On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 3:59 AM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
> > > > I have developed the attached patch which causes pg_upgrade to preserve
> > > > the transaction epoch.  I plan to apply this for PG 9.5.
> > > 
> > > I would say this is a simple bug and should be back patched to 9.4 and
> > > 9.3. We're only going to continue to get complaints from people
> > > running into this.
> > 
> > Yes, I did think about that, but it seems like a behavior change. 
> > However, it is tempting to avoid future bug reports about this.
> 
> When this came up in March, Tom and I agreed that this wasn't something
> we wanted to slip into 9.4.  Given that, it is hard to argue we should
> now slip this into 9.5, 9.4, and 9.3, so unless someone else votes for
> inclusion, I think I will leave this as 9.5-only.

With no one replying, I will consider this issue closed and not
backpatch this.

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



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: Memory Alignment in Postgres
Next
From: Stephen Frost
Date:
Subject: Re: ALTER TABLESPACE MOVE command tag tweak