On 2014-06-04 17:03:52 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Actually, that statement makes me realize that if we fix > PG_CONTROL_VERSION then it's a good idea to *also* do some regular catalog > changes, or at least bump catversion. Otherwise pg_upgrade won't be able to > cope with upgrading non-default tablespaces in beta1 installations.
Heh. That's not a particularly nice property, although I can see where it's coming from. Probably not really problematic because catversion updates are so much more frequent. > For the moment I'll just go bump PG_CONTROL_VERSION, assuming that we have > enough other things on the table that at least one of them will result in > a catversion bump before beta2. The slot_name vs slotname thing seems uncontroversial enough since slot_name is the thing that already appears everywhere in the docs and it's what we'd agreed upon onlist. It's just that not everything got the message. > I have no objection to these as long as we can get some consensus on the > new names (and personally I don't much care what those are, but I agree > "xmin" for a user column is a bad idea). I won't do anything about this one though until we've agreed upon something. Greetings, Andres Freund -- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
