|To:||"Alvaro Herrera" <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>|
|Subject:||Re: pg_resetwal --next-transaction-id may cause database failed to restart.|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email|
>The rationale for this interface is unclear to me. Please explain what
>happens in each case?
>In my proposal, we'd have:
>* Bad value, no --force:
> - program raises error, no work done.
>* Bad value with --force:
> - program raises warning but changes anyway.
>* Good value, no --force:
> - program changes value without saying anything
>* Good value with --force:
> - same
You have list all cases, maybe you are right it needs to raise a warning
when force a Bad value write which missed in the patch.
And I use '--test' in the patch, not '--force' temporary, maybe it needs
a deep research and discuss.
>The rationale for this interface is convenient knowledgeable access: the
>DBA runs the program with value X, and if the value is good, then
>they're done. If the program raises an error, DBA has a choice: either
>run with --force because they know what they're doing, or don't do
>anything because they know that they would make a mess.
Yes that's it, in addition the raised error, can tell the DBA to input a good
Highgo Software (Canada/China/Pakistan)
URL : www.highgo.ca
|Next Messageemail@example.com||2020-07-08 01:31:24||Re: A patch for get origin from commit_ts.|
|Previous Message||torikoshia||2020-07-08 01:14:42||Re: Is it useful to record whether plans are generic or custom?|