| From: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
| Cc: | Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com>, Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>, bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com, alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: A recent message added to pg_upgade |
| Date: | 2023-11-09 07:42:54 |
| Message-ID: | CAA4eK1Kv9Jiobpw43-Su7tOWv0ELBwpL4pyetuf=VN1AMdTEgw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Nov 9, 2023 at 12:38 PM Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Nov 09, 2023 at 05:04:28PM +1100, Peter Smith wrote:
> > Having a GUC hook for the "max_slot_wal_keep_size" seemed OK to me. If
> > the user overrides a GUC value (admittedly, maybe there is no reason
> > why they would want to) then at least the hook will give an error,
> > rather than us silently overwriting the user's value with -1.
> >
> > So, patch v4 LGTM, except it is better to include a test case.
>
> Where's this v4?
>
I think it is in an email[1]. I can take care of this unless we see
some opposition to this idea.
[1] - https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20231102.115834.1012152975995247837.horikyota.ntt%40gmail.com
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2023-11-09 07:52:32 | Re: A recent message added to pg_upgade |
| Previous Message | Laurenz Albe | 2023-11-09 07:38:43 | Re: Fix output of zero privileges in psql |