Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <> 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. */
> >     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                        |               |  (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

Reply via email to