| From: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Did we really want to force an initdb in beta2? |
| Date: | 2010-06-03 15:25:04 |
| Message-ID: | 4C07C950.4060209@enterprisedb.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 03/06/10 17:54, Tom Lane wrote:
> Because that's the consequences of fooling with pg_control.
> I committed the PG_CONTROL_VERSION bump that was missing from
> the patch Robert committed last night, but I wonder whether
> we shouldn't revert the whole thing instead. It's not apparent
> to me that what it bought is worth forcing beta testers to initdb.
Hmph, good point, I did not think of that at all when I reviewed the patch.
If we moved the new DB_SHUTDOWNED_IN_RECOVERY as the last item in the
enum, we would stay backwards-compatible.
--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2010-06-03 15:26:07 | Re: "caught_up" status in walsender |
| Previous Message | Florian Pflug | 2010-06-03 15:19:30 | Re: PITR Recovery Question |