Re: [HACKERS] LIMITS

Chris Bitmead <chris(dot)bitmead(at)bigfoot(dot)com> writes:
>> Did you do a full recompile and initdb?

> I did a full compile, but I didn't do an initdb. I was upgrading from a
> 6.5 beta of about a month ago to the latest CVS. Should it be necessary?

Yes, I recall someone (Jan?) changed a couple of node types recently.
That affects the stored representation of rules among other things.

It's considered courteous to mention it in the hackers list when you
do something that requires a full recompile and/or initdb, but a quick
note is likely to be all the notice there is for such changes on the
current sources.

If you're not paying close attention to pghackers traffic, the safest
approach is make distclean, rebuild, initdb every time you pull current
sources. I do that routinely, even though I pull sources every few
days. Machine time is cheap; wasted debugging effort is not.

Memo to hackers: it might be nice to have some sort of "INITDB serial
number" value somewhere that could be bumped anytime someone makes an
initdb-forcing change; then the postmaster could refuse to start up
if you are trying to run it against an incompatible database. As far
as I know we do this at the granularity of major releases, but it'd be
even more useful with a finer-grained serial number...

regards, tom lane