| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Stephen R(dot) van den Berg" <srb(at)cuci(dot)nl> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: page 1 of relation global/11787 was uninitialized |
| Date: | 2013-04-09 17:34:41 |
| Message-ID: | 6594.1365528881@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Stephen R. van den Berg" <srb(at)cuci(dot)nl> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> It's conceivable that updating to something more current than 9.0.4
>> would get you out of this --- we've fixed quite a number of WAL replay
>> bugs in the last two years.
> I see that there is a 9.0.13, but that would be a source upgrade, since Debian
> doesn't provide later than 9.0.4 AFAICS.
That's a bit hard to believe, especially given that 9.0.13 fixes a
rather major security bug. Any packager that isn't offering something
more current than 9.0.4 is *seriously* misfeasant.
> I suppose upgrading to 9.1.9 is not recommended in this state, or is it?
You can't -- only a 9.0.x server will even try to start up against this
DB.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2013-04-09 17:37:34 | Re: page 1 of relation global/11787 was uninitialized |
| Previous Message | Stephen R. van den Berg | 2013-04-09 17:33:19 | Re: page 1 of relation global/11787 was uninitialized |