Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

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: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
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

  Bruce Momjian                        |
  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


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2001-03-02 16:03:20
Subject: Re: WAL & RC1 status
Previous:From: The Hermit HackerDate: 2001-03-02 15:51:11
Subject: Re: WAL & RC1 status

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2018 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group