Re: NextXID format change (was Re: [HACKERS] exposing pg_controldata and pg_config as functions)

2016-02-12 Thread Joe Conway
On 02/11/2016 04:59 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 9:18 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote: >> No, that is not an improvement --- see my previous comment: >> >>> We could get more sophisticated by checking the catalog version number >>> where the format was changed,

Re: NextXID format change (was Re: [HACKERS] exposing pg_controldata and pg_config as functions)

2016-02-12 Thread Bruce Momjian
On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 07:18:46PM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote: > No, that is not an improvement --- see my previous comment: > > > We could get more sophisticated by checking the catalog version number > > where the format was changed, but that doesn't seem worth it, and is > > overly complex

Re: NextXID format change (was Re: [HACKERS] exposing pg_controldata and pg_config as functions)

2016-02-12 Thread Michael Paquier
On Sat, Feb 13, 2016 at 7:54 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 07:18:46PM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote: >> No, that is not an improvement --- see my previous comment: >> >> > We could get more sophisticated by checking the catalog version number >> > where the

Re: NextXID format change (was Re: [HACKERS] exposing pg_controldata and pg_config as functions)

2016-02-11 Thread Bruce Momjian
On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 10:23:41AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 9:57 AM, Joe Conway wrote: > > I'll commit the attached tomorrow if there are no other concerns voiced. > > Just a nitpick regarding this block: > + if (strchr(p, '/') !=

Re: NextXID format change (was Re: [HACKERS] exposing pg_controldata and pg_config as functions)

2016-02-11 Thread Michael Paquier
On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 9:18 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 10:23:41AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: >> On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 9:57 AM, Joe Conway wrote: >> > I'll commit the attached tomorrow if there are no other concerns voiced. >> >>

Re: NextXID format change (was Re: [HACKERS] exposing pg_controldata and pg_config as functions)

2016-02-09 Thread Joe Conway
On 01/19/2016 07:04 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 11:41 AM, Alvaro Herrera > wrote: >> Joe Conway wrote: >> >>> The attached includes Bruce's change, plus I found two additional sites >>> that appear to need the same change. The xlog.c change is

Re: NextXID format change (was Re: [HACKERS] exposing pg_controldata and pg_config as functions)

2016-02-09 Thread Michael Paquier
On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 9:57 AM, Joe Conway wrote: > I'll commit the attached tomorrow if there are no other concerns voiced. Just a nitpick regarding this block: + if (strchr(p, '/') != NULL) + p = strchr(p, '/'); + /* delimiter changed from

Re: NextXID format change (was Re: [HACKERS] exposing pg_controldata and pg_config as functions)

2016-01-19 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Joe Conway wrote: > The attached includes Bruce's change, plus I found two additional sites > that appear to need the same change. The xlog.c change is just a DEBUG > message, so not a big deal. I'm less certain if the xlogdesc.c change > might create some fallout. Hm, pg_xlogdump links the

Re: NextXID format change (was Re: [HACKERS] exposing pg_controldata and pg_config as functions)

2016-01-19 Thread Michael Paquier
On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 11:41 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Joe Conway wrote: > >> The attached includes Bruce's change, plus I found two additional sites >> that appear to need the same change. The xlog.c change is just a DEBUG >> message, so not a big deal. I'm less