On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 3:20 PM, tushar <tushar.ah...@enterprisedb.com> wrote: > On 05/29/2017 03:10 PM, Amit Kapila wrote: >> >> What makes you think above is a valid usage and should >> pass? > > with earlier versions ,for instance - v.96 v/s v9.5 ,pg_resetwal was giving > pg_control values . > > Installed v9.6 and v9.5 and run pg_resetwal of v9.6 against data directory > of v9.5. > > [centos@centos-cpula ~]$ /tmp/pg9.6/bin/pg_resetxlog -D /tmp/pg9.5/bin/data/ > pg_resetxlog: pg_control exists but is broken or unknown version; ignoring > it > Guessed pg_control values: >
I think this happens due to commit f82ec32ac30ae7e3ec7c84067192535b2ff8ec0e which renames pg_xlog to pg_wal. It does take care of making some of the modules like pg_basebackup to understand both old and new directory structures, but not done for all the modules. I think we should make similar changes in pg_resetwal or at the very least update the docs to indicate pg_resetwal can give an error if used against pre-10 data directory. -- With Regards, Amit Kapila. EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
