Re: ALTER TABLE lock downgrades have broken pg_upgrade

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Greg Stark
Тема Re: ALTER TABLE lock downgrades have broken pg_upgrade
Дата
Msg-id CAM-w4HPiNaJS4qW5Mwye7EHG-TBc1REdjO5QiTsmRVEoGAdHJw@mail.gmail.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: ALTER TABLE lock downgrades have broken pg_upgrade  (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>)
Список pgsql-hackers
For what it's worth, for my historical sort benchmarks I got Postgres
to build right back to 6.5 using modern tools. I have patches if
anyone wants them. Pre-7.3 doesn't actually run because we didn't
support 64-bit architectures before Tom did the V1 api (there was a
set of Alpha patches floating around but they don't seem sufficient
for x86_64). But I suspect if I built it for x86 32-bit that would
clear the immediate problem.


I was considering proposing backpatching some minimal patches to get
old unsupported branches to at least build with modern tools and run.
Just to make it easy for people to test historical behaviour and I
suppose pg_dump or other client testing would be a good use case too.
I was also going to propose turning off all warnings on these
unsupported back branches while I was at it.


One other lesson I learned doing this was that it was a pain referring
to individual git checkouts because we don't have a tag for point
where we branched the new development. So all my git-describes were
ending up with things like REL9_2_BETA2-619-gff6c78c or
REL9_3_BETA1-925-g6668ad1. You just had to know that REL9_3_BETA1-xxx
was probably a revision sometime during PG 9.5 development since BETA1
was probably where we forked development whereas 9.3 probably forked
off 9_2_BETA2. (And some were things like REL7_4_RC1-1513-g4525418
instead)

I would suggest adding tags for each version on the first development
revision so that we could see things like REL9_5_DEV-nnn would mean
the nnnth commit on the 9.5 development branch.

(What I actually did instead myself was use git describe --tags
--contains $i --match 'REL[0-9]_[0-9]_[0-9]' which gave me things like
REL9_5_0~1334 which means the 1334th commit *before* REL9_5_0. That
was also confusing but at least consistent)



В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: "David G. Johnston"
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: force_parallel_mode uniqueness
Следующее
От: Tom Lane
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: First-draft release notes for next week's back-branch releases