Re: oldest/newestCommitTs output by pg_controldata

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: oldest/newestCommitTs output by pg_controldata
Date: 2015-12-28 19:48:24
Message-ID: 24056.1451332104@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> writes:
> I retract my earlier suggestion of doing HEAD different from
> REL9_5_STABLE, at least for the moment. My patch for pg_controldata
> related functions is going to impact all this anyway, so we might as
> well not fuss about it now.

Seems reasonable.

> Any objections to the attached?

Looks OK in a quick once-over.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message David Fetter 2015-12-28 20:07:20 Re: pam auth - add rhost item
Previous Message Joe Conway 2015-12-28 19:44:47 Re: oldest/newestCommitTs output by pg_controldata