Re: Version number for pg_control

From: Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Version number for pg_control
Date: 2016-07-17 07:28:26
Message-ID: CAMsr+YHY-o0J585ihDpiWL33983SvUN1GA7WUnNpkrAmQN6DLw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 15 July 2016 at 23:54, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:

> While researching a pgsql-general question, I noticed that commit
> 73c986adde5d73a5e2555da9b5c8facedb146dcd added several new fields
> to pg_control without bothering to touch PG_CONTROL_VERSION. Thus,
> PG_CONTROL_VERSION is still "942" even though the file contents
> are not at all compatible with 9.4.
>
> It's way too late to do anything about this in 9.5.

Is it?

If PG_VERSION and the catalog version are correct for 9.5, the next point
release could update pg_control's version, accepting the old one during
recovery but only writing the new one.

Whether we should is another matter, since that means people can't
downgrade to old point releases, replicas will break if they upgrade the
master before the replicas, etc. It doesn't seem worth the cost/benefit.

--
Craig Ringer http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Armor 2016-07-17 09:33:58 One question about transformation ANY Sublinks into joins
Previous Message Craig Ringer 2016-07-17 07:23:40 Re: One process per session lack of sharing