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 AANLkTinqRNbDVkQgy-IQ0vtNtbRrv8mWZCbH4ABZ7YJ1@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?  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 4:30 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org> writes:
>> On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 2:49 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>>> 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?
>
> Offhand I can think of three internal version-like numbers:
>
> CATALOG_VERSION_NO --- bump if initial system catalog contents would be
> inconsistent with backend code
>
> PG_CONTROL_VERSION --- bump when contents of pg_control change

They're easy enough.

> XLOG_PAGE_MAGIC --- bump on incompatible change in WAL contents

How can I get that from an existing data directory? I don't see it in
pg_controldata output (unless it has a non-obvious alias).


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


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix leaky VIEWs for RLS
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Did we really want to force an initdb in beta2?