Re: Did we really want to force an initdb in beta2?

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Did we really want to force an initdb in beta2?
Date: 2010-06-03 16:16:17
Message-ID: 6056.1275581777@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> If we moved the new DB_SHUTDOWNED_IN_RECOVERY as the last item in the
> enum, we would stay backwards-compatible.

I don't think that's a terribly workable idea; the enum is laid out so
that inequality tests are sensible, and I'm not sure there aren't any.
The code would look mighty ugly in any case.

What exactly was the reason for this patch? Could it be held over till
9.1?

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2010-06-03 16:34:02 9.0 release notes
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2010-06-03 16:13:34 Re: functional call named notation clashes with SQL feature