Excerpts from Robert Haas's message of dom may 22 23:09:47 -0400 2011:
> On Sun, May 22, 2011 at 10:24 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> > Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> >> On Sun, May 22, 2011 at 9:54 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> >>> But also, 99.999% of the time
> >>> it would be completely wasted effort because the DBA wouldn't remove the
> >>> postgresql.conf setting at all, ever.
> >> Well, by that argument, we ought not to worry about masterminding what
> >> happens if the DBA does do such a thing -- just run the whole process
> >> and damn the torpedoes. If it causes a brief database stall, at least
> >> they'll get the correct behavior.
> > Yeah, maybe. But I don't especially want to document "If you remove a
> > pre-existing setting of TimeZone from postgresql.conf, expect your
> > database to lock up hard for multiple seconds" ... and I think we
> > couldn't responsibly avoid mentioning it. At the moment that disclaimer
> > reads more like "If you remove a pre-existing setting of TimeZone from
> > postgresql.conf, the database will fall back to a default that might not
> > be what you were expecting". Is A really better than B?
> Well, I'm not entirely sure, but I lean toward yes. Anyone else have
> an opinion?
Yes, I think the lock-up is better than weird behavior. Maybe we should
add a short note in a postgresql.conf comment to this effect, so that it
doesn't surprise anyone that deletes or comments out the line.
Álvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Robert Haas||Date: 2011-05-26 17:50:45|
|Subject: Re: [ADMIN] pg_class reltuples/relpages not updated by autovacuum/vacuum|
|Previous:||From: Emanuel Calvo||Date: 2011-05-26 17:38:34|
|Subject: Re: BUG #6041: Unlogged table was created bad in slave node|