Re: Did we really want to force an initdb in beta2? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Did we really want to force an initdb in beta2?
Date
Msg-id 16262.1275665422@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Did we really want to force an initdb in beta2?  (Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org>)
Responses Re: Did we really want to force an initdb in beta2?
Re: Did we really want to force an initdb in beta2?
List pgsql-hackers
Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org> writes:
> On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 2:49 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.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

XLOG_PAGE_MAGIC --- bump on incompatible change in WAL contents
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: Did we really want to force an initdb in beta2?
Next
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: Did we really want to force an initdb in beta2?