From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Did we really want to force an initdb in beta2? |
Date: | 2010-06-03 15:30:15 |
Message-ID: | AANLkTileUZTfali3DrozPTqjCzpuWljLRKWDd2Klkz4f@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 11:25 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
<heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
> On 03/06/10 17:54, Tom Lane wrote:
>>
>> Because that's the consequences of fooling with pg_control.
>> I committed the PG_CONTROL_VERSION bump that was missing from
>> the patch Robert committed last night, but I wonder whether
>> we shouldn't revert the whole thing instead. It's not apparent
>> to me that what it bought is worth forcing beta testers to initdb.
>
> Hmph, good point, I did not think of that at all when I reviewed the patch.
>
> If we moved the new DB_SHUTDOWNED_IN_RECOVERY as the last item in the enum,
> we would stay backwards-compatible.
Ugh, sorry about that. I didn't realize this either.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise Postgres Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2010-06-03 15:34:04 | Re: functional call named notation clashes with SQL feature |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2010-06-03 15:28:49 | Re: functional call named notation clashes with SQL feature |