Robert Haas wrote: > 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.
Right. > > 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. If we had a way to force the master to upgrade, I think it would be good because we have a mechanism to get rid of the legacy truncation code; but as I said several messages ago this doesn't actually work which is why I dropped the idea of panicking. -- Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers