On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 10:02 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Michael Paquier <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> writes:
>> On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 9:00 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>>> So we need to prevent this, not try to make it work.  I don't think
>>> we can insist on a version match in pg_control, because part of the
>>> point of pg_resetxlog/pg_resetwal is to recover if pg_control is
>>> unreadable.  But I think we could look at PG_VERSION, which is only a
>>> text file.
>> Agreed. Shouldn't this be back-patched? PG_CONTROL_VERSION has not
>> been bumped between 9.4 and 9.5. Attached is a patch for HEAD.
> Yeah, I'm thinking it would be a good idea to enforce this in all
> branches.  Your patch looks sane in a quick once-over, but I didn't
> test it.

Thanks. I can provide patches for back-branches as needed.

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to