From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Markus Wanner <markus(at)bluegap(dot)ch>, PostgreSQL-development Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: WAL_DEBUG logs spurious data |
Date: | 2013-01-25 21:27:18 |
Message-ID: | 20130125212718.GT6848@momjian.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 07:06:15PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Markus Wanner <markus(at)bluegap(dot)ch> writes:
> > On 10/11/2012 03:11 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> The original design intention was that rm_desc should not attempt to
> >> print any such data, but obviously some folks didn't get the word.
>
> > FWIW: in case the source code contains comments explaining that
> > intention, I certainly missed them so far.
>
> Yeah, if we decide to stick with the limitation, some documentation
> would be called for. I remember having run into this and having removed
> functionality from an rm_desc function rather than question the premise.
> But maybe the extra functionality is worth the cycles.
I assume there is no TODO item or patch here.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2013-01-25 21:37:58 | Re: Why will hashed SubPlan not use multiple batches |
Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2013-01-25 21:23:21 | Re: pg_retainxlog for inclusion in 9.3? |