| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Make CheckRequiredParameterValues() depend upon correct |
| Date: | 2010-04-28 13:38:42 |
| Message-ID: | 23371.1272461922@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-committers pgsql-hackers |
Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> At commit, should I bump catversion, or PG_CONTROL_VERSION, or both? The
> patch replaces the unlogged-operation WAL record with a record
> containing current parameter values, and it changes pg_control. I'm
> guessing both.
You *must* bump PG_CONTROL_VERSION because the content of pg_control
changed. The correct way to reflect a change in WAL contents is to
bump the WAL page magic number. I don't see any change here in either
system catalog contents or user table contents, so I see no need to
touch catversion.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Magnus Hagander | 2010-04-28 13:46:23 | pgsql: Fix typo that had the code check the same thing twice. |
| Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2010-04-28 10:32:28 | Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Make CheckRequiredParameterValues() depend upon correct |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Magnus Hagander | 2010-04-28 13:46:39 | Re: bug in build_startup_packet() |
| Previous Message | Fujii Masao | 2010-04-28 12:43:48 | bug in build_startup_packet() |