> 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.
> 
> At least one of my concerns (single point of failure) would require a
> change to the layout of pg_control, which would force initdb anyway.
> Anyone want to propose a third version# for pg_control?

I now remember Hiroshi complaining about major WAL problems also,
particularly corrupt WAL files preventing the database from starting.

-- 
  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: Ross J. Reedstrom	Date: 2001-03-02 16:38:55
	Subject: Re: Attribute Alignment
Previous:	From: Thomas Lockhart	Date: 2001-03-02 16:28:39
	Subject: Re: Re: [HACKERS] Release in 2 weeks ...