Re: First-draft release notes for back-branch releases
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: First-draft release notes for back-branch releases |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 6011.1541543439@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: First-draft release notes for back-branch releases (Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>) |
Ответы |
Re: First-draft release notes for back-branch releases
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> writes: > * Andrew Gierth (andrew@tao11.riddles.org.uk) wrote: >> Do we need to add anything in the release notes about possible >> complications in upgrading caused by the 65f39408ee71 / 56535dcdc9e2 >> issue? >> >> If upgrading from the immediately prior point releases to this one, then >> the shutdown of the previous version might have left an incorrect min >> recovery point in pg_control, yes? So the error could then occur when >> starting the new version, even though the bug is now apparently fixed. > Based on the discussion on IRC and Andrew's comments above, it seems to > me like we should really highlight this. Would be nice if we could > include some information about what to do if someone is bit by this > also... You could be bit by any shutdown of the old code, no, whether it's part of a pg_upgrade or not? Also, it looks like the bug only affects standbys (or at least that's what the commit message seems to imply), which makes it less of a data-loss hazard than it might've been. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: