From: | Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: RFC: Add 'taint' field to pg_control. |
Date: | 2018-03-01 01:00:54 |
Message-ID: | 20180301010054.GE32095@telsasoft.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 02:23:19PM -0800, Andres Freund wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 2018-02-28 16:16:53 -0600, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> > - did recovery (you could use "needed recovery" instead, but then there's the
> > question of how reliable that field would be);
> > + or: timestamp of most recent recovery (attempt?)
> What'd that be useful for?
Theoretically nothing but conceivably useful if there's an issue with recovery.
I recall various historic things weren't but should have been WAL logged.
> > - local_preload_libraries?
> Hm?
Not sure; but in any case I meant *_preload_libraries.
> > - started in single user mode or with system indices disabled?
> why?
Some of these I suggested just as a datapoint (or other brainstorms I couldn't
immediately reject). A cluster where someone has UPDATED pg_* (even
pg_statistic) or otherwise hacked on I would tend to think about differently
than a "pristine" cluster that's never seen anything more interesting than a
join.
Justin
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Daniel Gustafsson | 2018-03-01 01:00:56 | Re: Two small patches for the isolationtester lexer |
Previous Message | Amit Langote | 2018-03-01 00:57:47 | Re: ON CONFLICT DO UPDATE for partitioned tables |