| From: | "David Johnston" <polobo(at)yahoo(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "'Euler Taveira'" <euler(at)timbira(dot)com>, "'Erik Rijkers'" <er(at)xs4all(dot)nl> |
| Cc: | <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: sql_implementation_info still contains old value |
| Date: | 2012-10-25 23:05:10 |
| Message-ID: | 018601cdb305$2f2b07d0$8d811770$@yahoo.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> -----Original Message-----
> From: pgsql-hackers-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org [mailto:pgsql-hackers-
> owner(at)postgresql(dot)org] On Behalf Of Euler Taveira
> Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2012 6:59 PM
> To: Erik Rijkers
> Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] sql_implementation_info still contains old value
>
> On 25-10-2012 15:36, Erik Rijkers wrote:
> > I would expect 9.2.1 to contain '09.02.0001' (not '09.02.0000').
> >
> '09.02.0000' is the initdb'ed version. It seems you upgrade binaries from
9.2
> to 9.2.1.
>
>
> It seems we should ignore the last digit or invent a way to update that
tuple
> according to the new minor version. Another option is document that that
> version is the initdb'ed version.
>
If this is the case does pg_upgrade "init-db" for this purpose?
David J.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Euler Taveira | 2012-10-25 23:16:38 | Re: sql_implementation_info still contains old value |
| Previous Message | Euler Taveira | 2012-10-25 22:59:12 | Re: sql_implementation_info still contains old value |