Re: WAL & RC1 status

From: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-core(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: WAL & RC1 status
Date: 2001-03-02 15:54:04
Message-ID: 200103021554.KAA23086@candle.pha.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> > Is there a version number in the WAL file?
>
> catversion.h will do fine, no?
>
> > Can we put conditional code in there to create
> > new log file records with an updated format?
>
> The WAL stuff is *far* too complex already. I've spent a week studying
> it and I only partially understand it. I will not consent to trying to
> support multiple log file formats concurrently.

Well, I was thinking a few things. Right now, if we update the
catversion.h, we will require a dump/reload. If we can update just the
WAL version stamp, that will allow us to fix WAL format problems without
requiring people to dump/reload. I can imagine this would be valuable
if we find we need to make changes in 7.1.1, where we can not require
dump/reload.

--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2001-03-02 16:03:20 Re: WAL & RC1 status
Previous Message The Hermit Hacker 2001-03-02 15:51:11 Re: WAL & RC1 status