"Jeff Davis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Wed, 2008-06-04 at 14:17 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: >> > Would that also cover possible differences in page size, 32bit OS vs. >> > 64bit OS, different timestamp flavour, etc. issues ? AFAIR, all these >> > things can have an influence on how the data is written and possibly >> > make the WAL incompatible with other postgres instances, even if the >> > exact same version... >> >> These are already covered by the information in pg_control. > > Another thing that can change between systems is the collation behavior, > which can corrupt indexes (and other bad things).
Well, yes and no. It's entirely possible, for example, for a minor release of an OS to tweak the collation rules for a collation without changing the name. For the sake of argument they might just be fixing a bug in the collation rules. From the point of view of the OS that's a minor bug fix that they might not foresee causing data corruption problems. Pegging pg_control to a particular release of the OS would be pretty terrible though. I don't really see an out for this. But it's another roadblock to consider akin to "not-really-immutable index expressions" for any proposal which depends on re-finding index pointers :( -- Gregory Stark EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com Ask me about EnterpriseDB's Slony Replication support! -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
