Re: pg_resetwal --next-transaction-id may cause database failed to restart.

From: "movead(dot)li(at)highgo(dot)ca" <movead(dot)li(at)highgo(dot)ca>
To: "Alvaro Herrera" <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: robertmhaas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: pg_resetwal --next-transaction-id may cause database failed to restart.
Date: 2020-07-20 05:42:59
Message-ID: 2020072013402195066673@highgo.ca
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers


>It may be OK actually; if you're doing multiple dangerous changes, you'd
>use --dry-run beforehand ... No? (It's what *I* would do, for sure.)
>Which in turns suggests that it would good to ensure that --dry-run
>*also* emits a warning (not an error, so that any other warnings can
>also be thrown and the user gets the full picture).
Yes that's true, I have chaged the patch and will get a warning rather than
error when we point a --dry-run option.
And I remake the code which looks more clearly.

>I think adding multiple different --force switches makes the UI more
>complex for little added value.
Yes I also feel about that, but I can't convince myself to use --force
to finish the mission, because --force is used when something wrong with
pg_control file and we can listen to hackers' proposals.

Regards,
Highgo Software (Canada/China/Pakistan)
URL : www.highgo.ca
EMAIL: mailto:movead(dot)li(at)highgo(dot)ca

Attachment Content-Type Size
pg_resetwal_transaction_limit_v3.patch application/octet-stream 6.8 KB

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Fabien COELHO 2020-07-20 05:48:42 Re: psql - add SHOW_ALL_RESULTS option
Previous Message Thomas Munro 2020-07-20 05:28:53 Re: Comment simplehash/dynahash trade-offs