| 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 18:37:15 |
| Message-ID: | C5BF66C2-8698-4232-A2CA-7763F7B91F7D@enterprisedb.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs pgsql-hackers |
> On Oct 11, 2021, at 11:33 AM, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> wrote:
>
> I definitely think that it warrants a warning box. This is a huge
> practical difference.
>
> Note that I'm talking about a standard thing, which there are
> certainly a dozen or more examples of in the docs already. Just grep
> for "<warning> </warning>" tags to see the existing warning boxes.
Yes, sure, I know they exist. It's just that I have a vague recollection of a discussion on -hackers about whether we should be using them so much.
The documentation for contrib/amcheck has a paragraph but not a warning box. Should that be changed also?
—
Mark Dilger
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2021-10-11 18:40:34 | Re: BUG #17212: pg_amcheck fails on checking temporary relations |
| Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2021-10-11 18:33:40 | Re: BUG #17212: pg_amcheck fails on checking temporary relations |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2021-10-11 18:40:34 | Re: BUG #17212: pg_amcheck fails on checking temporary relations |
| Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2021-10-11 18:33:40 | Re: BUG #17212: pg_amcheck fails on checking temporary relations |