Re: Sigh, we need an initdb - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: Sigh, we need an initdb
Date
Msg-id CA+Tgmob_vhfaPLZZH=ACvMpOw1UT2bXXkVA_ifyeDQutX_R74Q@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Sigh, we need an initdb  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: Sigh, we need an initdb  (David G Johnston <david.g.johnston@gmail.com>)
Re: Sigh, we need an initdb  (Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 2:52 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> I just noticed that we had not one, but two commits in 9.4 that added
> fields to pg_control.  And neither one changed PG_CONTROL_VERSION.
> This is inexcusable sloppiness on the part of the committers involved,
> but the question is what do we do now?

I think it would be an awfully good idea to think about what we could
put into the buildfarm, the git repository, or the source tree to get
some automatic notification when somebody screws up this way (or the
xlog header magic, or catversion).  The first of those two screw-ups
(by me) was 11 months ago today; it's pretty scary that we're only
just now noticing.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: Fix xpath() to return namespace definitions
Next
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: Hide 'Execution time' in EXPLAIN (COSTS OFF)