On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 4:24 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> Just check the name of the directory so that pg_resetwal will refuse
> to run against pg_xlog directory
That's a strictly weaker integrity check than what Tom already
committed. That only distinguishes pre-10 from post-10, whereas Tom
linked
On 29 May 2017 at 17:00, Tom Lane wrote:
> Amit Kapila writes:
>> 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 stru
On 30 May 2017 at 00:00, Tom Lane wrote:
> I think it's just horribly dangerous to run any version of
> pg_resetxlog/pg_resetwal
You can pretty much stop there ;)
--
Craig Ringer http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
--
Sen
On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 9:30 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Amit Kapila writes:
>> 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 direct
Michael Paquier writes:
> Agreed. Shouldn't this be back-patched? PG_CONTROL_VERSION has not
> been bumped between 9.4 and 9.5. Attached is a patch for HEAD.
Pushed with minor adjustments. Notably, I didn't take your addition
of canonicalize_path() and referencing the file by absolute path.
That
On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 10:02 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Michael Paquier writes:
>> On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 9:00 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> So we need to prevent this, not try to make it work. I don't think
>>> we can insist on a version match in pg_control, because part of the
>>> point of pg_resetxlo
Michael Paquier writes:
> On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 9:00 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> So we need to prevent this, not try to make it work. I don't think
>> we can insist on a version match in pg_control, because part of the
>> point of pg_resetxlog/pg_resetwal is to recover if pg_control is
>> unreadabl
On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 9:00 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> So we need to prevent this, not try to make it work. I don't think
> we can insist on a version match in pg_control, because part of the
> point of pg_resetxlog/pg_resetwal is to recover if pg_control is
> unreadable. But I think we could look a
Amit Kapila writes:
> 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.
che
On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 3:19 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
> 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
> no
tushar writes:
> I have installed PG v9.6 / v9.5 , if we run pg_resetwal from v10
> binaries against data directory of v9.6/9.5 ,getting this error -
> centos@centos-cpula bin]$ ./pg_resetwal -D /tmp/pg9.6/bin/data/
> pg_resetwal: pg_control exists but is broken or unknown version; ignoring it
>
On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 3:20 PM, tushar 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
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.
[cen
On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 1:48 PM, tushar wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have installed PG v9.6 / v9.5 , if we run pg_resetwal from v10 binaries
> against data directory of v9.6/9.5 ,getting this error -
>
> centos@centos-cpula bin]$ ./pg_resetwal -D /tmp/pg9.6/bin/data/
> pg_resetwal: pg_control exists but is
Hi,
I have installed PG v9.6 / v9.5 , if we run pg_resetwal from v10
binaries against data directory of v9.6/9.5 ,getting this error -
centos@centos-cpula bin]$ ./pg_resetwal -D /tmp/pg9.6/bin/data/
pg_resetwal: pg_control exists but is broken or unknown version; ignoring it
pg_resetwal: could
15 matches
Mail list logo
