On Wed, 2008-06-04 at 10:40 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > "Heikki Linnakangas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Hmm, WAL version compatibility is an interesting question. Most minor > > releases hasn't changed the WAL format, and it would be nice to allow > > running different minor versions in the master and slave in those cases. > > But it's certainly not unheard of to change the WAL format. Perhaps we > > should introduce a WAL version number, similar to catalog version? > > Yeah, perhaps. In the past we've changed the WAL page ID field for > this; I'm not sure if that's enough or not. It does seem like a good > idea to have a way to check that the slaves aren't trying to read a > WAL version they don't understand. Also, it's possible that the WAL > format doesn't change across a major update, but you still couldn't > work with say an 8.4 master and an 8.3 slave, so maybe we need the > catalog version ID in there too.
And something dependent on datetime being integer. We probably won't need to encode presence of user defined types, like PostGis , being present ? ----- Hannu -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
