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 6056.1275581777@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Did we really want to force an initdb in beta2?  (Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com>)
Responses Re: Did we really want to force an initdb in beta2?  (Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com> writes:
> If we moved the new DB_SHUTDOWNED_IN_RECOVERY as the last item in the 
> enum, we would stay backwards-compatible.

I don't think that's a terribly workable idea; the enum is laid out so
that inequality tests are sensible, and I'm not sure there aren't any.
The code would look mighty ugly in any case.

What exactly was the reason for this patch?  Could it be held over till
9.1?
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: functional call named notation clashes with SQL feature
Next
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: 9.0 release notes