Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On 2014-05-14 12:20:55 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Yeah, I don't think we want to bump the WAL version code post-beta1.
>>
>> Probably better to assign the modified spgist record a new xl_info ID
>> number, so that a beta1 slave would throw an error for it.
> Since that ship has now sailed...? It's imo bad form to release a new
> version that overwrites the stack and heap, even if we can't see a
> concrete danger.
Yeah, no longer much reason to avoid changing the WAL version code.
regards, tom lane