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?

			regards, tom lane

In response to

• Re: WAL & RC1 status at 2001-03-02 15:54:04 from Bruce Momjian

Responses

• Re: WAL & RC1 status at 2001-03-02 16:09:05 from Bruce Momjian
• Re: WAL & RC1 status at 2001-03-02 16:37:01 from Bruce Momjian

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:	From: Bruce Momjian	Date: 2001-03-02 16:09:05
	Subject: Re: WAL & RC1 status
Previous:	From: Bruce Momjian	Date: 2001-03-02 15:54:04
	Subject: Re: WAL & RC1 status