Horton

Re: adding a new column in IDENTIFY_SYSTEM

Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>

View thread
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>
Cc: Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>, Jaime Casanova <jaime@2ndquadrant.com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2011-05-05T15:59:21Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Commits

Same data as JSON: GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources. API reference →

  1. Add postmaster/postgres undocumented -b option for binary upgrades.

  2. Add casts from int4 and int8 to numeric.

  3. Oops, forgot to bump catversion in the Serializable Snapshot Isolation patch.

Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> writes:
>> So even if people don't believe in the rationale behind the patch,
>> would allowing it harm anything at this point?

> Adding it for the sake of upgrades seems very far fetched.

> Adding it for the sake of giving a better error message seems like a
> very good idea. But in that case, the client side code to actually
> give a better error message should be included from the start, IMHO.

What's not apparent to me is how we'll even get to this check; if
there's a mismatch, won't the database system identifier comparison
fail first in most scenarios?

I'm also wondering why send WAL version number and not, say, catalog
version number, if there's some idea that we need more tests than the
system identifier comparison.

Given reasonable answers to these questions, I'd not object to putting
in additional error testing.  I concur with Magnus that the patch should
actually provide those tests, and not just put in an unused field.

			regards, tom lane