Re: Version number for pg_control - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Craig Ringer
Subject Re: Version number for pg_control
Date
Msg-id CAMsr+YHY-o0J585ihDpiWL33983SvUN1GA7WUnNpkrAmQN6DLw@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Version number for pg_control  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
On 15 July 2016 at 23:54, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
While researching a pgsql-general question, I noticed that commit
73c986adde5d73a5e2555da9b5c8facedb146dcd added several new fields
to pg_control without bothering to touch PG_CONTROL_VERSION.  Thus,
PG_CONTROL_VERSION is still "942" even though the file contents
are not at all compatible with 9.4.

It's way too late to do anything about this in 9.5.

Is it?

If PG_VERSION and the catalog version are correct for 9.5, the next point release could update pg_control's version, accepting the old one during recovery but only writing the new one.

Whether we should is another matter, since that means people can't downgrade to old point releases, replicas will break if they upgrade the master before the replicas, etc. It doesn't seem worth the cost/benefit.

--
 Craig Ringer                   http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
 PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Craig Ringer
Date:
Subject: Re: One process per session lack of sharing
Next
From: Jun Cheol Gim
Date:
Subject: [PROPOSAL] timestamp informations to pg_stat_statements