On 04/29/2014 02:56 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> On 04/28/2014 10:32 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
>>> I have to admit it's been a few years since I've had to play with
>>> WAL_DEBUG, so I don't really remember what I was trying to do. But I
>>> don't see any real argument that three slash-separated numbers will be
>>> more useful to somebody who has to dig through this than a pathname,
>>> even an approximate pathname, and I think people wanting to figure out
>>> approximately where they need to look to find the data affected by the
>>> WAL record will be pretty common among people decoding WAL records.
>>
>> Meh. I still think it's a bad idea to have CATALOG_VERSION_NO getting
>> compiled into libpgcommon.a, where there will be no way to cross-check
>> that it matches anything. But I guess I'm losing this argument.
>
> FWIW, I agree it's a bad idea. I just have no better ideas (and
> haven't given it much thought anyway).
>
>
Sure sounds like a bad idea.
cheers
andrew