On 7/15/16 5:47 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Tom Lane wrote: >> While researching a pgsql-general question, I noticed that commit >> 73c986adde5d73a5e2555da9b5c8facedb146dcd added several new fields >> to pg_control without bothering to touch PG_CONTROL_VERSION. Thus, >> PG_CONTROL_VERSION is still "942" even though the file contents >> are not at all compatible with 9.4. > > Oh crap :-( > >> It's way too late to do anything about this in 9.5. I wonder though >> if we should advance PG_CONTROL_VERSION now, presumably to "960", >> so that at least as of 9.6 the format is correctly distinguished >> from the 9.4-era format. Or will that just make things even more >> confusing, given that 9.5 is what it is? > > I can't quite make up my mind about it. It seems pointless to change > it now, but at the same time it seems wrong to let it continue to be > unchanged from 9.4. > > I slightly lean towards changing it in 9.6.
+1 for changing it. However, I don't think it's such a big deal since each version since 8.3 (at least) has had a unique catalog version. Maybe this would affect pg_controldata or other supporting utilities but the server itself should not be affected since it also checks the catalog version. -- -David da...@pgmasters.net -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers