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 |
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 |