-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 08/25/2015 12:41 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Joe Conway wrote:
>> On 08/25/2015 11:28 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>>> Joe Conway wrote:
>>>
>>>> Does anyone out there object to a non-backward compatible
>>>> change to pg_controldata output?
>>>
>>> I don't (and thanks for taking care of it), but as I recall,
>>> pg_upgrade reads and interprets pg_controldata output so it
>>> may need adjustment too.
>>
>> Thanks for the heads up. There are lots of controldata items
>> pg_upgrade is interested in, but AFAICS none of these are
>> included. Now maybe they should be, but they are not currently
>> referenced.
>
> Well, if there's no compatibility hit then I don't think it's
> worth worrying about.
Committed and pushed to HEAD and 9.5
Joe
- --
Crunchy Data - http://crunchydata.com
PostgreSQL Support for Secure Enterprises
Consulting, Training, & Open Source Development
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux)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=WaIR
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
