| 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: | 3585.983549000@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| 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
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2001-03-02 16:09:05 | Re: WAL & RC1 status |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2001-03-02 15:54:04 | Re: WAL & RC1 status |