| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Vik Fearing <vik(at)postgresfriends(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Catalog version access |
| Date: | 2021-03-03 19:16:43 |
| Message-ID: | 1206100.1614799003@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Vik Fearing <vik(at)postgresfriends(dot)org> writes:
> On 3/3/21 6:35 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> If what you want to know is whether a given binary can run against a
>> given data directory then CATALOG_VERSION_NO isn't the only thing you
>> need to check. The full truth of this is in ReadControlFile(). The
>> best way to get that answer is to start a server and see if it
>> complains. You can even grep the log for "It looks like you need to
>> initdb.".
> In that case, what would everyone think about a `pg_ctl check` option?
The trouble with Peter's recipe is that it doesn't work if there is
already a server instance running there (or at least I think we'll
bitch about the existing postmaster first, maybe I'm wrong). Now,
that's not such a big problem for the use-case you were describing.
But I bet if we expose this method as an apparently-general-purpose
pg_ctl option, there'll be complaints.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2021-03-03 19:43:20 | Re: Extensibility of the PostgreSQL wire protocol |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2021-03-03 18:54:18 | Re: Libpq support to connect to standby server as priority |