Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: WAL & RC1 status

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-core(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: WAL & RC1 status
Date: 2001-03-02 15:48:38
Message-ID: 3457.983548118@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> Is there a version number in the WAL file?

catversion.h will do fine, no?

> Can we put conditional code in there to create
> new log file records with an updated format?

The WAL stuff is *far* too complex already.  I've spent a week studying
it and I only partially understand it.  I will not consent to trying to
support multiple log file formats concurrently.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: The Hermit HackerDate: 2001-03-02 15:51:11
Subject: Re: WAL & RC1 status
Previous:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2001-03-02 15:43:00
Subject: Re: WAL & RC1 status

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group