On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 9:50 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: >> On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 1:48 PM, Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com> >> wrote: >>> I don't understand why that'd be better than simply fixing (yes, that's >>> imo the correct term) pg_upgrade to retain relfilenodes across the >>> upgrade. Afaics there's no conflict risk and it'd make the clusters much >>> more similar, which would be good; independent of rsyncing standbys. > >> +1. > > That's certainly impossible for the system catalogs, which means you > have to be able to deal with relfilenode discrepancies for them, which > means that maintaining the same relfilenodes for user tables is of > dubious value.
Why is that impossible for the system catalogs? -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
