On 24 April 2013 09:53, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakan...@vmware.com> wrote: > On 24.04.2013 11:46, Simon Riggs wrote: >> >> On 24 April 2013 09:32, Heikki Linnakangas<hlinnakan...@vmware.com> >> wrote: >> >>>> pg_ctl already checks versions, so I don't see the point. >>> >>> >>> >>> The point is, if you do "pgsql93/bin/pg_ctl -D $92DATADIR promote", it >>> will >>> create fast_promote file and return success. But it won't actually >>> promote >>> the server. I think that's bad. >>> >>> If pg_ctl already has a check against that, fine, but I don't think it >>> does. >>> Please make sure you test that before applying. >> >> >> If it doesn't check, that is not the only thing that would be broken. >> The original commit of pg_ctl promote would also be broken. > > > Yeah, it would've been good if the "pg_ctl promote" patch would've added a > version check. Nevertheless, don't you think it would be good to avoid > changing the filename of the "promote" file, so that we don't have any more > such breakage? I don't see any advantage in changing it.
Apart from all the reasons I already gave, no. The filename isn't changing. We are adding a new capability and changing the default. -- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers