On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 9:49 PM, Michael Paquier <mich...@paquier.xyz> wrote: > On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 10:52:51AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote: >> I would just document the risks. If the documentation says that you >> can't rely on the value until after the next checkpoint, or whatever >> the rule is, then I think we're fine. I don't think that we really >> have the infrastructure to do any better; if we try, we'll just end up >> with odd warts. Documenting the current set of warts is less churn >> and less work. > > The last version of the patch proposed has eaten this diff which was > part of one of the past versions (v2-0001-Change-FPW-handling.patch from > https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20180412.103430.133595350.horiguchi.kyotaro%40lab.ntt.co.jp): > + The default is <literal>on</literal>. The change of the parameter > takes > + effect at the next checkpoint time. > So there were some documentation about the beHavior change for what it's > worth.
Fine, but that doesn't answer the question of whether we actually need to or should change the behavior in the first place. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
