Re: 16-bit page checksums for 9.2 - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: 16-bit page checksums for 9.2
Date
Msg-id CA+TgmoZ_wNDuVb3XDUAU68np6SWqj5tegOJRXccvoJLc86WA9Q@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: 16-bit page checksums for 9.2  (Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>)
Responses Re: 16-bit page checksums for 9.2  (Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>)
Re: 16-bit page checksums for 9.2  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 12:42 PM, Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> wrote:
>>> And how would a DBA know that?
>>
>> We'd add a column to pg_class that tracks which page version is in use
>> for each relation.
>
> So a relation can't have some pages in Version 9.2, and other pages in
> version 9.3?  How will this work for 2TB tables?

Not very well, but better than Tom's proposal to require upgrading the
entire cluster in a single off-line operation.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Josh Berkus
Date:
Subject: Re: 16-bit page checksums for 9.2
Next
From: Josh Berkus
Date:
Subject: Re: 16-bit page checksums for 9.2