Thread: PG_PAGE_LAYOUT_VERSION - Should be Documented as 3?

PG_PAGE_LAYOUT_VERSION - Should be Documented as 3?

From
Matt Miller
Date:
doc/src/sgml/storage.sgml says:

"The last 2 bytes of the page header,
<structfield>pd_pagesize_version</structfield>, store both the page size
and a version indicator.  Beginning with
<productname>PostgreSQL</productname> 8.0 the version number is 2;
<productname>PostgreSQL</productname> 7.3 and 7.4 used version number 1;
prior releases used version number 0."

But src/include/storage/bufpage.h says:

"/*
 * Page layout version number 0 is for pre-7.3 Postgres releases.
 * Releases 7.3 and 7.4 use 1, denoting a new HeapTupleHeader layout.
 * Release 8.0 changed the HeapTupleHeader layout again.
 * Release 8.1 redefined HeapTupleHeader infomask bits.
 */
#define PG_PAGE_LAYOUT_VERSION      3"

So, should the attached be applied?

Attachment

Re: PG_PAGE_LAYOUT_VERSION - Should be Documented as 3?

From
Alvaro Herrera
Date:
On Thu, Sep 01, 2005 at 03:36:12PM +0000, Matt Miller wrote:

> But src/include/storage/bufpage.h says:
> 
> "/*
>  * Page layout version number 0 is for pre-7.3 Postgres releases.
>  * Releases 7.3 and 7.4 use 1, denoting a new HeapTupleHeader layout.
>  * Release 8.0 changed the HeapTupleHeader layout again.
>  * Release 8.1 redefined HeapTupleHeader infomask bits.
>  */
> #define PG_PAGE_LAYOUT_VERSION      3"
> 
> So, should the attached be applied?

Also it would be nice to include a patch to mention that piece of
documentation in the comment, so when we increment the version number
again we remember to update the docs.

-- 
Alvaro Herrera -- Valdivia, Chile         Architect, www.EnterpriseDB.com
Thou shalt check the array bounds of all strings (indeed, all arrays), for
surely where thou typest "foo" someone someday shall type
"supercalifragilisticexpialidocious" (5th Commandment for C programmers)


Re: PG_PAGE_LAYOUT_VERSION - Should be Documented as 3?

From
Tom Lane
Date:
Matt Miller <mattm@epx.com> writes:
> doc/src/sgml/storage.sgml says:

There's a number of things not updated yet in that file :-(
I believe it hasn't heard of pg_twophase either.
        regards, tom lane