From: | Bernd Helmle <mailings(at)oopsware(dot)de> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: pg_controldata gobbledygook |
Date: | 2013-04-26 11:28:07 |
Message-ID: | 02794891993DAA78C8AC6C6E@apophis.credativ.lan |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
--On 25. April 2013 23:19:14 -0400 Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> I think I've heard of scripts grepping the output of pg_controldata for
> this that or the other. Any rewording of the labels would break that.
> While I'm not opposed to improving the labels, I would vote against your
> second, abbreviated scheme because it would make things ambiguous for
> simple grep-based scripts.
I had exactly this kind of discussion just a few days ago with a customer,
who wants to use the output in their scripts and was a little worried about
the compatibility between major versions.
I don't think we do guarantuee any output format compatibility between
corresponding symbols in major versions explicitly, but given that
pg_controldata seems to have a broad use case here, we should maybe
document it somewhere wether to discourage or encourage people to rely on
it?
--
Thanks
Bernd
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Mitsumasa KONDO | 2013-04-26 11:46:48 | Re: Failing start-up archive recovery at Standby mode in PG9.2.4 |
Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2013-04-26 11:14:40 | Re: Substituting Checksum Algorithm (was: Enabling Checksums) |