Hi, On 2014-06-04 14:52:35 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > I think we could possibly ship 9.4 without fixing this, but it would be > imprudent. Anyone think differently?
Agreed. Additionally I also agree with Stefan that the price of a initdb during beta isn't that high these days. > Of course, if we do fix this then the door opens for pushing other > initdb-forcing fixes into 9.4beta2, such as the LOBLKSIZE addition > that I was looking at when I noticed this, or the pg_lsn catalog > additions that were being discussed a couple weeks ago. Other things I'd like to change in that case: * rename pg_replication_slots.xmin to something else. After the replication slot patch went in, in another patch's review you/Tom objected that xmin isn't the best name. The only problem being that I still don't have a better idea than my original 'data_xmin' which Robert disliked. * Standardize on either slot_name for the replication slot's name. Currently some functions have a parameter named 'slotname' but all columnnames (from SRFs) are slot_name. That's not really bad since the parameter names don't really mean much, but if we can we should fix it imo. Greetings, Andres Freund -- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
