Manfred Koizar wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Jul 2002 02:16:29 -0400 (EDT), Bruce Momjian
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >I committed the version with no #ifdef's. If we need them, we can add
> >them later, but it is likely we will never need them.
>
> My point was, if there is a need to fallback to v7.2 f
On Tue, 2 Jul 2002 02:16:29 -0400 (EDT), Bruce Momjian
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I committed the version with no #ifdef's. If we need them, we can add
>them later, but it is likely we will never need them.
My point was, if there is a need to fallback to v7.2 format, it can be
done by changing
Tom Lane wrote:
> Manfred Koizar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > ... I wonder
> > whether we shouldn't apply this second version (without the configure
> > parts) and put all forthcoming format changes under #ifndef
> > PG72FORMAT.
>
> Seems reasonable. I generally dislike #ifdef clutter, but th
Manfred Koizar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> ... I wonder
> whether we shouldn't apply this second version (without the configure
> parts) and put all forthcoming format changes under #ifndef
> PG72FORMAT.
Seems reasonable. I generally dislike #ifdef clutter, but the #ifs
would only be around a
On Mon, 1 Jul 2002 10:15:42 -0400 (EDT), Bruce Momjian
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>OK, I have heard enough votes to add this.
In a second version of this patch posted on 2002-06-26 you can control
the tuple format by #define/#undef PG72FORMAT. While there have been
voices saying that exposing th
Curt Sampson wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Jun 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> > OK, we need to vote on this patch. It reduces the tuple header by 4
> > bytes (11% decrease).
> >
> > If we apply it, we will not be able to easily use pg_upgrade for 7.3
> > because the on-disk table format will change.
> >
>
On Fri, 28 Jun 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> OK, we need to vote on this patch. It reduces the tuple header by 4
> bytes (11% decrease).
>
> If we apply it, we will not be able to easily use pg_upgrade for 7.3
> because the on-disk table format will change.
>
> Votes are:
>
> 1) Apply it now
> 2)