On 02.08.2011 20:06, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Excerpts from Heikki Linnakangas's message of mar ago 02 11:59:24 -0400 2011:
>> On 02.08.2011 15:18, Simon Riggs wrote:
>>> On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 12:43 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
>>> <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
>>>> On 02.08.2011 14:36, Simon Riggs wrote:
>>>> Actually I think we can append the new information to the end of the page
>>>> split record, so that an old version server can read WAL generated by new
>>>> version, too.
>>> Not sure how that would work. Lengths, CRCs?
>>> Or do you mean we will support 2 versions, have them both called the
>>> same thing, just resolve which is which by the record length. Don't
>>> like that.
>> Here's a patch to do what I meant. The new fields are stored at the very
>> end of the WAL record, and you check the length to see if they're there
>> or not. The nice thing about this is that it's compatible in both
> Err, did you attach the wrong patch?
Yes, sorry about that. Here's the right patch.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Florian Pflug||Date: 2011-08-02 17:52:27|
|Subject: Re: WIP fix proposal for bug #6123|
|Previous:||From: Phil Sorber||Date: 2011-08-02 16:55:24|
|Subject: Re: patch: move dumpUserConfig call in dumpRoles function