Re: WAL & RC1 status

> 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.

Having a version number of binary files has saved me many times because
I can add a little 'if' to allow upward binary compatibility without
breaking old binary files. I think we should have one.

I see our btree files, but I don't see one in heap. I am going to
recommend that for 7.2. All our files should have versions just in case
we ever need it. Some day, we may be able to skip dump/reload for major
versions.

--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026