On 2015-09-28 21:48:00 -0500, Jim Nasby wrote: > On 9/28/15 8:49 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > >If at some point we back-patch this further, then it potentially > >becomes a live issue, but I would like to respectfully inquire what > >exactly you think making it a PANIC would accomplish? There are a lot > >of scary things about this patch, but the logic for deciding whether > >to perform a legacy truncation is solid as far as I know. > > Maybe I'm confused, but I thought the whole purpose of this was to get rid > of the risk associated with that calculation in favor of explicit truncation > boundaries in the WAL log.
> Even if that's not the case, ISTM that being big and in your face about a > potential data corruption bug is a good thing, as long as the DBA has a way > to "hit the snooze button". So we'd end up with a guc that everyone has to set while they upgrade. That seems like a pointless hassle. Greetings, Andres Freund -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers