On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 9:47 AM, Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> wrote:
> * Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 12:12 PM, Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> wrote:
>> > That said, I'd also like to see a --force or similar option or mechanism
>> > put in place to reduce the risk of users trashing their system because
>> > they think pg_resetwal is "safe." ("It's just gonna reset things to make
>> > the database start again, should be fine.").
>>
>> You know we already have that, right?
>
> Yes, but I was meaning an option which would be required to make
> pg_resetxlog actually *do* anything. In other words, I'd rather have it
> report some info back to the user, if it's run without the
> '--really-force' or what-have-you option, and only proceed with
> clearing the WAL or rewriting pg_control when '--really-force' is used.
I don't think that the problem is that people are accidentally typing
"pg_resetxlog $PGDATA" and pressing return. They're typing that on
purpose, and if you change the sequence of characters required to get
that effect, they'll just type the new thing instead. The problem is
that they don't understand when it's appropriate to use that command
and what the consequences are.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
