On Tue, 2006-09-12 at 16:23 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Gregory Stark <stark@enterprisedb.com> writes:
> > Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> >>> My memory is lousy at the best of times, but when have we had a minor
> >>> release that would have broken this due to changed format?
>
> >> Not often, which is why I mention the possibility of having
> >> interoperating minor release levels at all. If it was common, I'd just
> >> put a blanket warning on doing that.
>
> > I don't know that it's happened in the past but I wouldn't be surprised.
> > Consider that the bug being fixed in the point release may well be a bug in
> > WAL log formatting.
>
> This would be the exception, not the rule, and should not be documented
> as if it were the rule. It's not really different from telling people
> to expect a forced initdb at a minor release: you are simply
> misrepresenting the project's policy.
OK, that's clear. I'll word it the other way around.
SGML'd version will go straight to -patches.
--
Other Questions and Changes:: please shout them in now.
-- Simon Riggs EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
