On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 4:08 AM, Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote: > On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 03:57:01PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: >> Masahiko Sawada wrote: >> > On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 12:02 AM, Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote: >> > > On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 11:56:25PM +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote: >> > >> > I agreed on ripping out the converter plugin ability of pg_upgrade. >> > >> > Remember pg_upgrade was originally written by EnterpriseDB staff, and >> > >> > I >> > >> > think they expected their closed-source fork of Postgres might need a >> > >> > custom page converter someday, but it never needed one, and at this >> > >> > point I think having the code in there is just making things more >> > >> > complex. I see _no_ reason for community Postgres to use a plugin >> > >> > converter because we are going to need that code for every upgrade >> > >> > from >> > >> > pre-9.6 to 9.6+, so why not just hard-code in the functions we need. >> > >> > We >> > >> > can remove it once 9.5 is end-of-life. >> > >> > >> > >> >> > >> Hm, we should rather remove the source code around PAGE_CONVERSION and >> > >> page.c at 9.6? >> > > >> > > Yes. I can do it if you wish. >> > >> > I see. I understand that page-converter code would be useful for some >> > future cases, but makes thing more complex. >> >> If we're not going to use it, let's get rid of it right away. There's >> no point in having a feature that adds complexity just because we might >> find some hypothetical use of it in a not-yet-imagined future. > > Agreed. We can always add it later if we need it. >
Attached patch gets rid of page conversion code. Regards, -- Masahiko Sawada
Remove_page_conversion_from_pg_upgrade.patch
Description: binary/octet-stream
-- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
