Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com> writes:
> On 09.08.2011 18:20, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> How about making the new backup_label field optional? If absent, assume
>> current behavior.
> That's how I actually did it in the patch. However, the problem wrt.
> requiring initdb is not the new field in backup_label, it's the new
> field in the control file.
Yeah. I think it's too late to be fooling with pg_control for 9.1.
Just fix it in HEAD.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
