On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 7:09 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera writes:
> >> Hmmm, I'm fairly sure you should have bumped XLOG_PAGE_MAGIC for this
> >> change. Otherwise, what is going to happen to an unpatched standby (of
> >> released versions) that receives the new WAL record from a patched
On 2018-Dec-21, Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera writes:
> > Hmmm, I'm fairly sure you should have bumped XLOG_PAGE_MAGIC for this
> > change. Otherwise, what is going to happen to an unpatched standby (of
> > released versions) that receives the new WAL record from a patched
> > primary?
>
> W
Alvaro Herrera writes:
>> Hmmm, I'm fairly sure you should have bumped XLOG_PAGE_MAGIC for this
>> change. Otherwise, what is going to happen to an unpatched standby (of
>> released versions) that receives the new WAL record from a patched
>> primary?
Oh, and if the answer to your question is no
Alvaro Herrera writes:
> Hmmm, I'm fairly sure you should have bumped XLOG_PAGE_MAGIC for this
> change. Otherwise, what is going to happen to an unpatched standby (of
> released versions) that receives the new WAL record from a patched
> primary?
We can't change XLOG_PAGE_MAGIC in released bran
Hmmm, I'm fairly sure you should have bumped XLOG_PAGE_MAGIC for this
change. Otherwise, what is going to happen to an unpatched standby (of
released versions) that receives the new WAL record from a patched
primary?
--
Álvaro Herrerahttps://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Develo
