Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com> writes:
> On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 9:00 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> So we need to prevent this, not try to make it work. I don't think
>> we can insist on a version match in pg_control, because part of the
>> point of pg_resetxlog/pg_resetwal is to recover if pg_control is
>> unreadable. But I think we could look at PG_VERSION, which is only a
>> text file.
> Agreed. Shouldn't this be back-patched? PG_CONTROL_VERSION has not
> been bumped between 9.4 and 9.5. Attached is a patch for HEAD.
Yeah, I'm thinking it would be a good idea to enforce this in all
branches. Your patch looks sane in a quick once-over, but I didn't
test it.
regards, tom lane
