El 03/10/2012 21:38, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> escribió:
> Does anyone have an objection to this? I can imagine cases where the
> check would reject values that would get accepted at runtime, if the
> type's input function was sensitive to the phase of the moon or
> something. But it doesn't seem very probable, whereas checking the
> value seems like an eminently useful thing to do. Or maybe I'm just
> overreacting to the report --- I can't recall any previous complaints
> like this, so maybe entering a bogus initcond is a corner case too.
I guess a wrong initcond value, probably is a pilot error.
So, my first reaction is +1 to make it an error.
But if you feel there a corner cases maybe at least a warning
2ndQuadrant: Your PostgreSQL partner
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Fujii Masao||Date: 2012-10-04 17:07:18|
|Subject: Re: Promoting a standby during base backup (was Re:
Switching timeline over streaming replication)|
|Previous:||From: Greg Sabino Mullane||Date: 2012-10-04 16:34:08|
|Subject: Re: PQping command line tool|