| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Florian Pflug <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Did we really want to force an initdb in beta2? |
| Date: | 2010-06-04 15:30:22 |
| Message-ID: | 16262.1275665422@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org> writes:
> On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 2:49 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> Right, because the catalog contents didn't change. Seems to me you'd
>> better teach the installers to look at PG_CONTROL_VERSION too.
> Hmm, is there anything else that might need to be checked?
Offhand I can think of three internal version-like numbers:
CATALOG_VERSION_NO --- bump if initial system catalog contents would be
inconsistent with backend code
PG_CONTROL_VERSION --- bump when contents of pg_control change
XLOG_PAGE_MAGIC --- bump on incompatible change in WAL contents
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2010-06-04 15:32:21 | Re: Did we really want to force an initdb in beta2? |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2010-06-04 15:22:51 | Re: Did we really want to force an initdb in beta2? |