Re: RFC: Add 'taint' field to pg_control.

On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 02:23:19PM -0800, Andres Freund wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 2018-02-28 16:16:53 -0600, Justin Pryzby wrote:

> > - did recovery (you could use "needed recovery" instead, but then there's the
> > question of how reliable that field would be);
> > + or: timestamp of most recent recovery (attempt?)
> What'd that be useful for?

Theoretically nothing but conceivably useful if there's an issue with recovery.
I recall various historic things weren't but should have been WAL logged.

> > - local_preload_libraries?
> Hm?

Not sure; but in any case I meant *_preload_libraries.

> > - started in single user mode or with system indices disabled?
> why?

Some of these I suggested just as a datapoint (or other brainstorms I couldn't
immediately reject). A cluster where someone has UPDATED pg_* (even
pg_statistic) or otherwise hacked on I would tend to think about differently
than a "pristine" cluster that's never seen anything more interesting than a
join.

Justin