On 04/28/2014 10:32 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes:
I have to admit it's been a few years since I've had to play with
WAL_DEBUG, so I don't really remember what I was trying to do. But I
don't see any real argument that three slash-separated numbers will be
more useful to somebody who has to dig through this than a pathname,
even an approximate pathname, and I think people wanting to figure out
approximately where they need to look to find the data affected by the
WAL record will be pretty common among people decoding WAL records.
Meh. I still think it's a bad idea to have CATALOG_VERSION_NO getting
compiled into libpgcommon.a, where there will be no way to cross-check
that it matches anything. But I guess I'm losing this argument.
FWIW, I agree it's a bad idea. I just have no better ideas (and haven't
given it much thought anyway).
- Heikki
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
