Re: Did we really want to force an initdb in beta2?
От | Bruce Momjian |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Did we really want to force an initdb in beta2? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 201006041327.o54DRH504705@momjian.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Did we really want to force an initdb in beta2? (Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org>) |
Ответы |
Re: Did we really want to force an initdb in beta2?
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Dave Page wrote: > On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 11:21 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > Florian Pflug <fgp@phlo.org> writes: > >> On Jun 3, 2010, at 19:00 , Tom Lane wrote: > >>> Maybe we should just get rid of the hint. > > > >> FYI, Robert Haas suggested the same in the thread that lead to this patch being applied. The arguments against doingthat is that a real crash during recovery *is* something to be quite alarmed about. > > > > After some discussion among core we're going to leave it as-is. ?Anybody > > who doesn't want to initdb for beta2 can test out pg_upgrade ;-) > > 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. I am unclear how that affects people's visibility about incompatibility. (pg_upgrade will not care.) -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + None of us is going to be here forever. +
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: