On Tue, Aug 24, 2021 at 12:04:00PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> > On Mon, Aug 23, 2021 at 8:29 PM Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
> >> I assume this patch is not going to be applied until there is an actual
> >> use case for preserving these values.
>
> > ...
>
> > That being said, if you or somebody else thinks that this is a bad
> > idea or that the reasons offered up until now are insufficient, feel
> > free to make that argument. I just work here...
>
> Per upthread discussion, it seems impractical to fully guarantee
> that database OIDs match, which seems to mean that the whole premise
> collapses. Like Bruce, I want to see a plausible use case justifying
> any partial-guarantee scenario before we add more complication (= bugs)
> to pg_upgrade.
Yes, pg_upgrade is already complex enough, so why add more complexity
for some cosmetic value. (I think "cosmetic" flew out the window with
pg_upgrade long ago. ;-) )
I know that pgBackRest has asked for stable relfilenodes to make
incremental file system backups after pg_upgrade smaller, but if we want
to make relfilenodes stable, we had better understand that is _why_ we
are adding this complexity.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> https://momjian.us
EDB https://enterprisedb.com
If only the physical world exists, free will is an illusion.
