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 18:28:04
Message-ID: AANLkTinqRNbDVkQgy-IQ0vtNtbRrv8mWZCbH4ABZ7YJ1@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 4:30 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org> writes:
>> On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 2:49 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>>> 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?
>
> Offhand I can think of three internal version-like numbers:
>
> CATALOG_VERSION_NO --- bump if initial system catalog contents would be
> inconsistent with backend code
>
> PG_CONTROL_VERSION --- bump when contents of pg_control change

They're easy enough.

> XLOG_PAGE_MAGIC --- bump on incompatible change in WAL contents

How can I get that from an existing data directory? I don't see it in
pg_controldata output (unless it has a non-obvious alias).

--
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 Tom Lane 2010-06-04 18:30:29 Re: Did we really want to force an initdb in beta2?
Previous Message Robert Haas 2010-06-04 18:00:19 Re: [PATCH] Fix leaky VIEWs for RLS