Re: A recent message added to pg_upgade

From: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
To: Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(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 07:08:38
Message-ID: ZUyFdrDA-ln4Rncf@paquier.xyz
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

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 may be missing, but it does not seem to be
attached to this thread..
--
Michael

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Ashutosh Bapat 2023-11-09 07:11:49 Re: RFC: Logging plan of the running query
Previous Message Junwang Zhao 2023-11-09 07:08:11 Re: make pg_ctl more friendly