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

Re: int64 timestamp patch for contrib/pg_controldata

From: Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)fourpalms(dot)org>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, sugita(at)sra(dot)co(dot)jp,pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: int64 timestamp patch for contrib/pg_controldata
Date: 2002-07-31 07:00:06
Message-ID: 3D478AF6.16EA584@fourpalms.org (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-patches
> I had a note that pg_resetxlog needs to be fixed as well; have you
> looked at that?

Hmm. I was playing with it recently and did not notice a problem (but
maybe didn't play long enough to see one if it existed). Why would the
program need to be changed? Doesn't it use a common definition of the
control file structure to do its thing? Does it read in the old one and
modify it in place (which would mean new fields would be transparent) or
does it pick up each field individually??

                    - Thomas

In response to

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: sugitaDate: 2002-07-31 07:03:34
Subject: Re: int64 timestamp patch for contrib/pg_controldata
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2002-07-31 06:56:42
Subject: Re: int64 timestamp patch for contrib/pg_controldata

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