| From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
|---|---|
| To: | Mark Dilger <mark(dot)dilger(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| 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 18:46:43 |
| Message-ID: | CAH2-WzmWgk-FKgj6bMmWozC15JEG7zGw83QWhxkxTENtvH79zw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Oct 11, 2021 at 11:37 AM Mark Dilger
<mark(dot)dilger(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
> The documentation for contrib/amcheck has a paragraph but not a warning box. Should that be changed also?
Maybe. I think that the pg_amcheck situation is a lot worse, because
users could easily interpret --parent-check as an additive thing.
Totally changing the general locking requirements seems like a POLA
violation. Besides, amcheck proper is now very much the low level tool
that most users won't ever bother with.
--
Peter Geoghegan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2021-10-11 18:53:38 | Re: BUG #17212: pg_amcheck fails on checking temporary relations |
| Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2021-10-11 18:40:34 | Re: BUG #17212: pg_amcheck fails on checking temporary relations |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2021-10-11 18:53:38 | Re: BUG #17212: pg_amcheck fails on checking temporary relations |
| Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2021-10-11 18:40:34 | Re: BUG #17212: pg_amcheck fails on checking temporary relations |