-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 08/25/2015 12:41 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Joe Conway wrote: >> On 08/25/2015 11:28 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: >>> Joe Conway wrote: >>> >>>> Does anyone out there object to a non-backward compatible >>>> change to pg_controldata output? >>> >>> I don't (and thanks for taking care of it), but as I recall, >>> pg_upgrade reads and interprets pg_controldata output so it >>> may need adjustment too. >> >> Thanks for the heads up. There are lots of controldata items >> pg_upgrade is interested in, but AFAICS none of these are >> included. Now maybe they should be, but they are not currently >> referenced. > > Well, if there's no compatibility hit then I don't think it's > worth worrying about.
Committed and pushed to HEAD and 9.5 Joe - -- Crunchy Data - http://crunchydata.com PostgreSQL Support for Secure Enterprises Consulting, Training, & Open Source Development -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJV3RrPAAoJEDfy90M199hlL+AQAJIChfxiDf08OqclgAHAcVr4 j5RKou1aeDJSHfDOoH4+f9wd8jaQawVzk/7pEy8aiumF4nioGcNcgVnG7w4qgHvf vt7w41YZStd08fvwuXr37lr1sMnPQLWGwWFx5VecTgXPveLSdh8sWZyxrXBoL7Z3 2lJx8RByjyDYB/wj2Ci0MRtk2s8vapFkHDwHPKvmx/i0neMgbqaXu0WKTLaNfOUy IIK1G5o0VHK4Qes3omtzfyTGLC299o1zfhW1Klk3uPukWliYiAjJfw1L8vAwLl0F MFJZb+EaLKl5EbQMRPSPCyHN/XxbEgmuTNFvAqhbUDYmOOPOgBLbIg8ke/w0s0g2 fEpzDFGKmsiSdYj17BZ6jp+xafIGaN8+seWcTyNaMDrqG9WEGx3AkcBUxgXfForY LyCOuZn1aS6hgQvVH5uiGg0QIHN0ZmzFBOTYUE+tUPetnQskC94IUT1rFRm1XH9I T/+JD/EYEoRiosZyeFfx+Zf+caL9KmtrUutGP7OXuNBBNyiTq26QifDZjfG5Fd8b IIxgeZQ3u0vWeTDuP148QrtioSj/IToUKhmn/kZvMwq6XxHhErA8Sc5zgzTE0dIi X4cYRcFESmCzEoDtAASaulpDIxSMVMp5GPWumCyK8CPHIqq7c8lNNqfM2ljdrGjR 1tfHRhq8/BFPrjT1fcrR =WaIR -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
