Re: WAL & RC1 status

Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> Well, I was thinking a few things.  Right now, if we update the
> catversion.h, we will require a dump/reload.  If we can update just the
> WAL version stamp, that will allow us to fix WAL format problems without
> requiring people to dump/reload.

Since there is not a separate WAL version stamp, introducing one now
would certainly force an initdb.  I don't mind adding one if you think
it's useful; another 4 bytes in pg_control won't hurt anything.  But
it's not going to save anyone's bacon on this cycle.

At least one of my concerns (single point of failure) would require a
change to the layout of pg_control, which would force initdb anyway.
Anyone want to propose a third version# for pg_control?
        regards, tom lane