On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 11:25 AM, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com> wrote: > On 03/06/10 17:54, Tom Lane wrote: >> >> Because that's the consequences of fooling with pg_control. >> I committed the PG_CONTROL_VERSION bump that was missing from >> the patch Robert committed last night, but I wonder whether >> we shouldn't revert the whole thing instead. It's not apparent >> to me that what it bought is worth forcing beta testers to initdb. > > Hmph, good point, I did not think of that at all when I reviewed the patch. > > If we moved the new DB_SHUTDOWNED_IN_RECOVERY as the last item in the enum, > we would stay backwards-compatible.
Ugh, sorry about that. I didn't realize this either. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise Postgres Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
