Re: exposing pg_controldata and pg_config as functions - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Bruce Momjian
Subject Re: exposing pg_controldata and pg_config as functions
Date
Msg-id 20160118214701.GQ31313@momjian.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: exposing pg_controldata and pg_config as functions  (Joe Conway <mail@joeconway.com>)
Responses Re: exposing pg_controldata and pg_config as functions  (Joe Conway <mail@joeconway.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Sun, Jan 17, 2016 at 02:24:46PM -0800, Joe Conway wrote:
> On 01/16/2016 06:02 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 9:08 AM, Joe Conway <mail@joeconway.com> wrote:
> >> 1) Change NextXID output format from "%u/%u" to "%u:%u"
> >>    (see recent hackers thread)
> > 
> > !     printf(_("Latest checkpoint's NextXID:          %u/%u\n"),
> >              ControlFile.checkPointCopy.nextXidEpoch,
> >              ControlFile.checkPointCopy.nextXid);
> >       printf(_("Latest checkpoint's NextOID:          %u\n"),
> > --- 646,652 ----
> >              ControlFile.checkPointCopy.ThisTimeLineID);
> >       printf(_("Latest checkpoint's full_page_writes: %s\n"),
> >              ControlFile.checkPointCopy.fullPageWrites ? _("on") : _("off"));
> > !     printf(_("Latest checkpoint's NextXID:          %u:%u\n"),
> > This should be definitely a separate patch.
> 
> Ok. Notwithstanding Simon's reply, there seems to be consensus that this
> is the way to go. Will commit it this way unless some additional
> objections surface in the next day or so.

FYI, this slash-colon change will break pg_upgrade unless it is patched.
Dp you want a patch from me?

--  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com

+ As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. +
+ Roman grave inscription                             +



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Fwd: [JDBC] Re: 9.4-1207 behaves differently with server side prepared statements compared to 9.2-1102
Next
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Improve spinlock inline assembly for x86.