On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 07:30:47PM +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > On 01/28/2014 07:26 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > >On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 07:21:50PM +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > >>>>I have no problem removing the parameter if required to. In that case, > >>>>I would like to leave the parameter in until mid beta, to allow > >>>>greater certainty. In any case, I would wish to retain as a minimum an > >>>>extern bool variable allowing it to be turned off by C function if > >>>>desired. > >>> > >>>Anything changed to postgresql.conf during beta is going to require an > >>>initdb. > >> > >>Huh? Surely not. > > > >Uh, if we ship beta1 with a GUC in postgresql.conf, and then we remove > >support for the GUC in beta2, anyone starting a server initdb-ed with > >beta1 is going to get an error and the server is not going to start: > > > > LOG: unrecognized configuration parameter "xxx" in file > > "/u/pgsql/data/postgresql.conf" line 1 > > FATAL: configuration file "/u/pgsql/data/postgresql.conf" contains > > errors > > > >so, yeah, it isn't going to require an initdb, but it is going to > >require everyone to edit their postgresql.conf. > > Only if you uncommented the value in the first place.
Oh, I had forgotten that. Right. It would still be odd to have a commented-out line in postgresql.conf that was not support. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + Everyone has their own god. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers