On 09.08.2011 19:07, Tom Lane wrote:
Heikki Linnakangas<heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com> writes:
On 09.08.2011 18:20, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
How about making the new backup_label field optional? If absent, assume
current behavior.
That's how I actually did it in the patch. However, the problem wrt.
requiring initdb is not the new field in backup_label, it's the new
field in the control file.
Yeah. I think it's too late to be fooling with pg_control for 9.1.
Just fix it in HEAD.
Done.
--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
