On 2013-04-08 10:47:50 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> writes: > > On 8 April 2013 15:29, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > >> Just for the record, the right way to handle that kind of change is to > >> change XLOG_PAGE_MAGIC, not catversion. A database's catalog version > >> might not be available to code that is inspecting WAL files and would > >> like to know what format it should expect. > > > I was so happy Andres had remembered to bump the catversion like I often > > do, it didn't occur to me it was the wrong one. My bad, sorry.
Sorry for that. > No problem. XLOG_PAGE_MAGIC is already different from what it was in > 9.2, so it's mostly academic whether or not we bump it again during > the devel cycle. I just didn't want anybodys devel instance crashing because it accessed record data that previously didn't exist. XLOG_PAGE_MAGIC space looks so much more sparse than catversion's ;) Greetings, Andres Freund -- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-committers mailing list (pgsql-committers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-committers
