On Thu, Aug 26, 2021 at 01:20:38PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > So I think this proposed change is in the safe direction. If > relfilenodes were currently preserved and we wanted to make them not > be preserved, then I think you would be quite right to say "whoa, > whoa, that could be a problem." Indeed it could. If anyone then in the > future wanted to introduce a dependency on them staying the same, they > would have a problem. However, nothing in the server itself can care > about relfilenodes - or anything else - being *different* across a > pg_upgrade. The whole point of pg_upgrade is to make it feel like you > have the same database after you run it as you did before you ran it, > even though under the hood a lot of surgery has been done. Barring > bugs, you can never be sad about there being too LITTLE difference > between the post-upgrade database and the pre-upgrade database.
Yes, this makes sense, and it is good we have stated the possible benefits now: * pgBackRest * pg_upgrade diagnostics * TDE (maybe) We can eventually evaluate the value of this based on those items. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> https://momjian.us EDB https://enterprisedb.com If only the physical world exists, free will is an illusion.
