Bruce Momjian wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
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
On Sun, 2005-02-20 at 13:08 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Bruno Wolff III wrote:
On Sun, Feb 20, 2005 at 09:43:11 -0500,
Bruce Momjian pgman@candle.pha.pa.us wrote:
We regularly have people on IRC who delete data and then want to recover
it.
That is (one of) the purpose(s) of
Tom Lane wrote:
Bruce Momjian pgman@candle.pha.pa.us 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
Bruno Wolff III wrote:
On Sun, Feb 20, 2005 at 09:43:11 -0500,
Bruce Momjian pgman@candle.pha.pa.us wrote:
We regularly have people on IRC who delete data and then want to recover
it. By having the define it makes it easier for us to help them without
them having to add actual C
Bruce Momjian pgman@candle.pha.pa.us 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
On Sat, Feb 19, 2005 at 10:56:46PM -0700, Michael Fuhr wrote:
What about making the behavior configurable at run time, say via a
command-line option?
Such functionality should be easy to backpatch to earlier versions,
shouldn't it? Pleas for help could then be answered with, upgrade
to the
