On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 10:23:41AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 9:57 AM, Joe Conway <m...@joeconway.com> wrote: > > I'll commit the attached tomorrow if there are no other concerns voiced. > > Just a nitpick regarding this block: > + if (strchr(p, '/') != NULL) > + p = strchr(p, '/'); > + /* delimiter changed from '/' to ':' in 9.6 */ > + else if (GET_MAJOR_VERSION(cluster->major_version) >= 906) > + p = strchr(p, ':'); > + else > + p = NULL; > Changing it as follows would save some instructions because there is > no need to call strchr an extra time: > if (GET_MAJOR_VERSION(cluster->major_version) >= 906) > p = strchr(p, ':'); > else > p = strchr(p, '/');
No, that is not an improvement --- see my previous comment: > We could get more sophisticated by checking the catalog version number > where the format was changed, but that doesn't seem worth it, and is > overly complex because we get the catalog version number from > pg_controldata, so you would be adding a dependency in ordering of the > pg_controldata entries. By testing for '906', you prevent users from using pg_upgrade to go from one catalog version of 9.6 to a later one. Few people may want to do it, but it should work. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. + + Roman grave inscription + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
