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 16:09:05
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:
> > 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.
> Since there is not a separate WAL version stamp, introducing one now
> would certainly force an initdb.  I don't mind adding one if you think
> it's useful; another 4 bytes in pg_control won't hurt anything.  But
> it's not going to save anyone's bacon on this cycle.

Having a version number of binary files has saved me many times because
I can add a little 'if' to allow upward binary compatibility without
breaking old binary files.  I think we should have one.

I see our btree files, but I don't see one in heap.  I am going to
recommend that for 7.2.  All our files should have versions just in case
we ever need it.  Some day, we may be able to skip dump/reload for major

  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: Thomas LockhartDate: 2001-03-02 16:21:29
Subject: Re: WAL & RC1 status
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2001-03-02 16:03:20
Subject: Re: WAL & RC1 status

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