Re: Did we really want to force an initdb in beta2? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Dave Page
Subject Re: Did we really want to force an initdb in beta2?
Date
Msg-id AANLkTikuIAGyF_GOGYTGmMS131M_Y9Vw6P6hvA-Ptd02@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Did we really want to force an initdb in beta2?  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: Did we really want to force an initdb in beta2?  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
Re: Did we really want to force an initdb in beta2?  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 2:49 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
>> Dave Page wrote:
>>> Shouldn't we have bumped the catversion? The installers can't tell
>>> that beta1 clusters won't work with beta2 :-(
>
>> That is an interesting point.  Tom bumped the pg_control version, but
>> not the catalog version.
>
> Right, because the catalog contents didn't change.  Seems to me you'd
> better teach the installers to look at PG_CONTROL_VERSION too.

Hmm, is there anything else that might need to be checked?

--
Dave Page
EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise Postgres Company


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: Idea for getting rid of VACUUM FREEZE on cold pages
Next
From: "Kevin Grittner"
Date:
Subject: Re: Idea for getting rid of VACUUM FREEZE on cold pages