On 09.08.2011 19:07, Tom Lane wrote:
> Heikki Linnakangas<heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com> writes:
>> On 09.08.2011 18:20, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>>> How about making the new backup_label field optional? If absent, assume
>>> current behavior.
>
>> That's how I actually did it in the patch. However, the problem wrt.
>> requiring initdb is not the new field in backup_label, it's the new
>> field in the control file.
>
> Yeah. I think it's too late to be fooling with pg_control for 9.1.
> Just fix it in HEAD.
Done.
-- Heikki Linnakangas EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com