Re: exposing pg_controldata and pg_config as functions

From: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
To: Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com>
Cc: Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Josh Berkus <josh(dot)berkus(at)pgexperts(dot)com>
Subject: Re: exposing pg_controldata and pg_config as functions
Date: 2016-01-18 21:47:01
Message-ID: 20160118214701.GQ31313@momjian.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Sun, Jan 17, 2016 at 02:24:46PM -0800, Joe Conway wrote:
> On 01/16/2016 06:02 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 9:08 AM, Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> wrote:
> >> 1) Change NextXID output format from "%u/%u" to "%u:%u"
> >> (see recent hackers thread)
> >
> > ! printf(_("Latest checkpoint's NextXID: %u/%u\n"),
> > ControlFile.checkPointCopy.nextXidEpoch,
> > ControlFile.checkPointCopy.nextXid);
> > printf(_("Latest checkpoint's NextOID: %u\n"),
> > --- 646,652 ----
> > ControlFile.checkPointCopy.ThisTimeLineID);
> > printf(_("Latest checkpoint's full_page_writes: %s\n"),
> > ControlFile.checkPointCopy.fullPageWrites ? _("on") : _("off"));
> > ! printf(_("Latest checkpoint's NextXID: %u:%u\n"),
> > This should be definitely a separate patch.
>
> Ok. Notwithstanding Simon's reply, there seems to be consensus that this
> is the way to go. Will commit it this way unless some additional
> objections surface in the next day or so.

FYI, this slash-colon change will break pg_upgrade unless it is patched.
Dp you want a patch from me?

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

+ As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. +
+ Roman grave inscription +

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andres Freund 2016-01-18 21:47:05 Re: [PATCH] Improve spinlock inline assembly for x86.
Previous Message Tom Lane 2016-01-18 21:44:17 Re: Fwd: [JDBC] Re: 9.4-1207 behaves differently with server side prepared statements compared to 9.2-1102