On Tue, 2006-09-12 at 16:23 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Gregory Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >>> My memory is lousy at the best of times, but when have we had a minor > >>> release that would have broken this due to changed format? > > >> Not often, which is why I mention the possibility of having > >> interoperating minor release levels at all. If it was common, I'd just > >> put a blanket warning on doing that. > > > I don't know that it's happened in the past but I wouldn't be surprised. > > Consider that the bug being fixed in the point release may well be a bug in > > WAL log formatting. > > This would be the exception, not the rule, and should not be documented > as if it were the rule. It's not really different from telling people > to expect a forced initdb at a minor release: you are simply > misrepresenting the project's policy.
OK, that's clear. I'll word it the other way around. SGML'd version will go straight to -patches. -- Other Questions and Changes:: please shout them in now. -- Simon Riggs EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match
