On 04/28/2014 10:32 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
>> I have to admit it's been a few years since I've had to play with
>> WAL_DEBUG, so I don't really remember what I was trying to do. But I
>> don't see any real argument that three slash-separated numbers will be
>> more useful to somebody who has to dig through this than a pathname,
>> even an approximate pathname, and I think people wanting to figure out
>> approximately where they need to look to find the data affected by the
>> WAL record will be pretty common among people decoding WAL records.
>
> Meh. I still think it's a bad idea to have CATALOG_VERSION_NO getting
> compiled into libpgcommon.a, where there will be no way to cross-check
> that it matches anything. But I guess I'm losing this argument.
FWIW, I agree it's a bad idea. I just have no better ideas (and haven't
given it much thought anyway).
- Heikki
