Re: Did we really want to force an initdb in beta2?

On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 11:25 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
<heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
> On 03/06/10 17:54, Tom Lane wrote:
>>
>> Because that's the consequences of fooling with pg_control.
>> I committed the PG_CONTROL_VERSION bump that was missing from
>> the patch Robert committed last night, but I wonder whether
>> we shouldn't revert the whole thing instead.  It's not apparent
>> to me that what it bought is worth forcing beta testers to initdb.
>
> Hmph, good point, I did not think of that at all when I reviewed the patch.
>
> If we moved the new DB_SHUTDOWNED_IN_RECOVERY as the last item in the enum,
> we would stay backwards-compatible.

Ugh, sorry about that. I didn't realize this either.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise Postgres Company