Re: WAL & RC1 status

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(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 15:48:38
Message-ID: 3457.983548118@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox
Thread:
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.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message The Hermit Hacker 2001-03-02 15:51:11 Re: WAL & RC1 status
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2001-03-02 15:43:00 Re: WAL & RC1 status