From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
Cc: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: config files in /data |
Date: | 2000-06-02 00:43:35 |
Message-ID: | 8670.959906615@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> Tom Lane writes:
>> The distinction between /global and /internal is a little bit artificial
>> (which one does pg_log belong in? It's only sort of a table...),
> Is there any reason these special tables are catalogued?
I can't think of a reason to catalog pg_log offhand, but maybe Vadim
knows one...
> Also, with the catalog version number, is there any more use for the
> PG_VERSION file?
Sure. The catalog number is just for internal purposes; you can't use
it (easily) to tell which release you have. PG_VERSION is more
appropriate for user interface purposes. Also, consider pg_upgrade:
it wouldn't have any simple way of checking for compatibility without
PG_VERSION.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2000-06-02 00:52:35 | Re: disbursion again |
Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2000-06-02 00:37:12 | Re: AW: AW: Proposal for enhancements of privilege system |