Re: btree_gist valgrind warnings about uninitialized memory

Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On 2014-05-14 10:07:18 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I think that's an OK restriction as long as we warn people about it
>> (you could update a replication pair as long as you shut them both
>> down cleanly at the same time, right?). Can the WAL replay routine
>> be made to detect incompatible records?

> We could just bump the wal version. Somewhat surprisingly that works if
> both nodes are shutdown cleanly (primary first)... But the errors about
> it are really ugly (will moan about unusable checkpoints), so it's
> probably not a good idea. Especially as it'll make it an issue for all
> users, not just the ones creating spgist indexes.

Yeah, I don't think we want to bump the WAL version code post-beta1.

Probably better to assign the modified spgist record a new xl_info ID
number, so that a beta1 slave would throw an error for it.

regards, tom lane