Re: pg_controldata gobbledygook - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Bernd Helmle
Subject Re: pg_controldata gobbledygook
Date
Msg-id 02794891993DAA78C8AC6C6E@apophis.credativ.lan
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: pg_controldata gobbledygook  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers

--On 25. April 2013 23:19:14 -0400 Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:

> I think I've heard of scripts grepping the output of pg_controldata for
> this that or the other.  Any rewording of the labels would break that.
> While I'm not opposed to improving the labels, I would vote against your
> second, abbreviated scheme because it would make things ambiguous for
> simple grep-based scripts.

I had exactly this kind of discussion just a few days ago with a customer, 
who wants to use the output in their scripts and was a little worried about 
the compatibility between major versions.

I don't think we do guarantuee any output format compatibility between 
corresponding symbols in major versions explicitly, but given that 
pg_controldata seems to have a broad use case here, we should maybe 
document it somewhere wether to discourage or encourage people to rely on 
it?

-- 
Thanks
Bernd



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: Substituting Checksum Algorithm (was: Enabling Checksums)
Next
From: Simon Riggs
Date:
Subject: Re: Recovery target 'immediate'