On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 10:48 PM, Jim Nasby <jim.na...@bluetreble.com> wrote: > 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.
Yes. But if the master hasn't been updated yet, then we still need to do something based on a calculation. > 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". Panicking the standby because the master hasn't been updated does not seem like a good thing to me in any way. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers