> Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> > Well, I was thinking a few things.  Right now, if we update the
> > catversion.h, we will require a dump/reload.  If we can update just the
> > WAL version stamp, that will allow us to fix WAL format problems without
> > requiring people to dump/reload.
> 
> Since there is not a separate WAL version stamp, introducing one now
> would certainly force an initdb.  I don't mind adding one if you think
> it's useful; another 4 bytes in pg_control won't hurt anything.  But
> it's not going to save anyone's bacon on this cycle.

Having a version number of binary files has saved me many times because
I can add a little 'if' to allow upward binary compatibility without
breaking old binary files.  I think we should have one.

I see our btree files, but I don't see one in heap.  I am going to
recommend that for 7.2.  All our files should have versions just in case
we ever need it.  Some day, we may be able to skip dump/reload for major
versions.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us               |  (610) 853-3000
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026

In response to

• Re: WAL & RC1 status at 2001-03-02 16:03:20 from Tom Lane

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:	From: Thomas Lockhart	Date: 2001-03-02 16:21:29
	Subject: Re: WAL & RC1 status
Previous:	From: Tom Lane	Date: 2001-03-02 16:03:20
	Subject: Re: WAL & RC1 status