Re: Did we really want to force an initdb in beta2?

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
Cc: Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org>, 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 13:49:19
Message-ID: 1964.1275659359@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
> Dave Page wrote:
>> Shouldn't we have bumped the catversion? The installers can't tell
>> that beta1 clusters won't work with beta2 :-(

> That is an interesting point. Tom bumped the pg_control version, but
> not the catalog version.

Right, because the catalog contents didn't change. Seems to me you'd
better teach the installers to look at PG_CONTROL_VERSION too.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message David Fetter 2010-06-04 13:51:39 Re: Synchronization levels in SR
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2010-06-04 13:27:17 Re: Did we really want to force an initdb in beta2?