-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
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.
(Bruce added to the thread:we're talking about: "Current wal_level setting" "Current wal_log_hints setting" "Current
max_connectionssetting" "Current max_worker_processes setting" "Current max_prepared_xacts setting" "Current
max_locks_per_xactsetting" "Current track_commit_timestamp setting"
)
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)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=nbOs
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----