From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> |
Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: SIGSEGV taken on 8.1 during dump/reload |
Date: | 2005-11-12 15:47:35 |
Message-ID: | 27762.1131810455@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> writes:
> So the idea is to force failure when it would otherwise succeed, not
> just for the pretty error messages but for stability of the system.
Exactly. Peter's right that we'd not always get a "nice" error message
--- but it's not hard to figure out "unresolved symbol" failures.
As we just were reminded, it can be really hard to figure out minor
incompatibilities with wrong-version libraries, and the real point of
the proposal is to save us from going through *that* again.
> I would be in favour if storing the CATALOG_VERSION in the pg_finfo
> struct and rejecting anything that doesn't match.
Not sure that CATALOG_VERSION is an amazingly useful thing to use.
I think the major version number (eg "8.1") would be sufficient,
and it'd certainly give error messages that meant more to the casual
user.
The problem with CATALOG_VERSION is that we bump it basically for
changes in the on-disk contents of a freshly initdb'd database, which
does not have all that much to do with the ABI seen by a shared library.
To have something useful that is finer-grain than major version number,
I think we'd need to invent a separate version number that could be
bumped whenever we made incompatible changes in in-memory structures
or function APIs. Which'd be almost every day during development :-(
I don't think it's worth trying to do that. People who work with
development tip should know to recompile their libraries whenever they
recompile the main system.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2005-11-12 15:53:55 | Re: How to find a number of connections |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2005-11-12 15:34:14 | Re: CONNECT BY PRIOR |