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. -- Michael -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers