Re: Sigh, we need an initdb

Robert Haas wrote
> On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 2:52 PM, Tom Lane <

> tgl(at)(dot)pa

> > wrote:
>> I just noticed that we had not one, but two commits in 9.4 that added
>> fields to pg_control. And neither one changed PG_CONTROL_VERSION.
>> This is inexcusable sloppiness on the part of the committers involved,
>> but the question is what do we do now?
>
> I think it would be an awfully good idea to think about what we could
> put into the buildfarm, the git repository, or the source tree to get
> some automatic notification when somebody screws up this way (or the
> xlog header magic, or catversion). The first of those two screw-ups
> (by me) was 11 months ago today; it's pretty scary that we're only
> just now noticing.

Not withstanding Tom's comments on the topic a regression test could work
here.

There was just a recent "leakproof" function discovery that resulted from a
regression test that compared all known leakproof functions to those in the
current catalog.

When the test fails there should be additional instruction - like "Please
alter this output file AND bump PG_CONTROL_VERSION!"

David J.

--
View this message in context: http://postgresql.1045698.n5.nabble.com/Sigh-we-need-an-initdb-tp5806058p5806071.html
Sent from the PostgreSQL - hackers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.