Tom Lane wrote: > Bruce Momjian <email@example.com> writes: > > Tom Lane wrote: > >> Not sure where this leads to, but it's not leading to an undocumented > >> one-line hack in tqual.c, and definitely not *that* one-line hack. > > > Sorry, here is the proper change I just applied: > > > /* This is to be used only for disaster recovery and requires serious > > analysis. */ > > #ifndef MAKE_ALL_TUPLES_VISIBLE > > return false; > > #else > > return true; > > #endif > > AFAICS this has no value whatsoever. Assuming that someone has a > disaster recovery problem on their hands, how likely is it that they > will know that that code is there, or be able to turn it on (most > users don't compile from source anymore), or be able to use it > effectively, given the complete lack of documentation? As is, this > is of value only to someone familiar with the code, and such a someone > could go in and modify the logic for themselves just as easily as > turn on a #define. > > I think the only real effect of this patch will be to confuse people > who are reading the source code. tqual.c is already complicated and > fragile enough --- it doesn't need conditionally compiled "features" > that we can't even explain the use of.
I need a note somewhere to remember where to tell people to modify the code to recovery something. Do you have a better idea? You want just a comment rather than a define? -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us firstname.lastname@example.org | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings