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

From: Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Florian Pflug <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Did we really want to force an initdb in beta2?
Date: 2010-06-04 15:06:26
Message-ID: AANLkTikuIAGyF_GOGYTGmMS131M_Y9Vw6P6hvA-Ptd02@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 2:49 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
>> Dave Page wrote:
>>> Shouldn't we have bumped the catversion? The installers can't tell
>>> that beta1 clusters won't work with beta2 :-(
>
>> That is an interesting point.  Tom bumped the pg_control version, but
>> not the catalog version.
>
> Right, because the catalog contents didn't change.  Seems to me you'd
> better teach the installers to look at PG_CONTROL_VERSION too.

Hmm, is there anything else that might need to be checked?

--
Dave Page
EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise Postgres Company

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Kevin Grittner 2010-06-04 15:13:00 Re: Idea for getting rid of VACUUM FREEZE on cold pages
Previous Message Kevin Grittner 2010-06-04 15:02:53 Re: PITR Recovery Question