| From: | Mark Dilger <mark(dot)dilger(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pavel Borisov <pashkin(dot)elfe(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alexander Lakhin <exclusion(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: BUG #17212: pg_amcheck fails on checking temporary relations |
| Date: | 2021-10-11 18:29:12 |
| Message-ID: | 648228C8-BD93-4C03-BFB2-6DE7AACE1628@enterprisedb.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs pgsql-hackers |
> On Oct 11, 2021, at 11:26 AM, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> wrote:
>
> We should have a warning box about this in the pg_amcheck docs. Users
> should think carefully about ever using --parent-check, since it alone
> totally changes the locking requirements (actually --rootdescend will
> do that too, but only because that option also implies
> --parent-check).
The recently submitted patch already contains a short paragraph for each of these, but not a warning box. Should I reformat those as warning boxes? I don't know the current thinking on the appropriateness of that documentation style.
—
Mark Dilger
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2021-10-11 18:33:40 | Re: BUG #17212: pg_amcheck fails on checking temporary relations |
| Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2021-10-11 18:26:29 | Re: BUG #17212: pg_amcheck fails on checking temporary relations |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2021-10-11 18:33:40 | Re: BUG #17212: pg_amcheck fails on checking temporary relations |
| Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2021-10-11 18:26:29 | Re: BUG #17212: pg_amcheck fails on checking temporary relations |