On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 9:18 AM, Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> 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 <m...@joeconway.com> 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 '/' to ':' in 9.6 */ >> + else if (GET_MAJOR_VERSION(cluster->major_version) >= 906) >> + p = strchr(p, ':'); >> + else >> + p = NULL; >> Changing it as follows would save some instructions because there is >> no need to call strchr an extra time: >> if (GET_MAJOR_VERSION(cluster->major_version) >= 906) >> p = strchr(p, ':'); >> else >> p = strchr(p, '/'); > > 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 because we get the catalog version number from >> pg_controldata, so you would be adding a dependency in ordering of the >> pg_controldata entries. > > By testing for '906', you prevent users from using pg_upgrade to go from > one catalog version of 9.6 to a later one. Few people may want to do > it, but it should work.
OK, I see now. I did not consider the case where people would like to get upgrade from a dev version of 9.6 to the latest 9.6 version, just the upgrade from a previous major version <= 9.5. Thanks for reminding that pg_upgrade needs to support that. -- Michael -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
