Re: [HACKERS] Version number for pg_control

2016-07-17 Thread Craig Ringer
On 15 July 2016 at 23:54, 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

Re: [HACKERS] Version number for pg_control

2016-07-15 Thread Tom Lane
I wrote: > David Steele writes: >> 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. > Right, that version number exists mostly for the benefit of pg_controldata >

Re: [HACKERS] Version number for pg_control

2016-07-15 Thread David Steele
On 7/15/16 6:13 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > David Steele wrote: >> On 7/15/16 5:47 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > >>> 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

Re: [HACKERS] Version number for pg_control

2016-07-15 Thread Tom Lane
David Steele writes: > +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

Re: [HACKERS] Version number for pg_control

2016-07-15 Thread David Steele
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

Re: [HACKERS] Version number for pg_control

2016-07-15 Thread Alvaro Herrera
David Steele wrote: > On 7/15/16 5:47 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > 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

Re: [HACKERS] Version number for pg_control

2016-07-15 Thread Alvaro Herrera
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

[HACKERS] Version number for pg_control

2016-07-15 Thread Tom Lane
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