| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Commit/abort WAL records with dropped rels missing XLR_SPECIAL_REL_UPDATE |
| Date: | 2020-08-17 07:00:17 |
| Message-ID: | 20200817070017.GE7787@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, Aug 15, 2020 at 11:05:43AM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 14, 2020 at 2:17 PM Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi> wrote:
>> It's always been like that, but I am not going backport, for fear of
>> breaking existing applications. If a program reads the WAL, and would
>> actually need to do something with commit records dropping relations,
>> that seems like such a common scenario that the author should've thought
>> about it and handled it even without the flag reminding about it. Fixing
>> it in master ought to be enough.
>
> +1 for doing it in master only. Even if someone comes up with such a
> scenario for back-branches, we can revisit our decision to backport
> this but like you, I also don't see any pressing need to do it now.
+1.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2020-08-17 07:14:38 | Re: Newline after --progress report |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2020-08-17 06:59:25 | Re: More tests with USING INDEX replident and dropped indexes |