Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

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 16:03:20
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.

At least one of my concerns (single point of failure) would require a
change to the layout of pg_control, which would force initdb anyway.
Anyone want to propose a third version# for pg_control?

			regards, tom lane

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2001-03-02 16:09:05
Subject: Re: WAL & RC1 status
Previous:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2001-03-02 15:54:04
Subject: Re: WAL & RC1 status

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