Re: pg_resetwal: refuse to run when backup_label exists

On Mon, Oct 05, 2026 at 07:32 PM, Michael Paquier wrote:
> I'm maybe just not seeing the value of the patch, then, that's all, so
> I doubt that my opinion has any value.

That's fine, thanks for taking a look.

> Please note that the community mailing lists follow the following
> style in terms of message posting:

Noted, sorry about that.

Shihao, I'm moving the entry to Ready for Committer. The code and
tests look good to me, and the question of whether -f should be able
to override the check is left for the committer to decide.

Regards,
João Marcelo

Em seg., 5 de out. de 2026 às 19:32, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
escreveu:

> On Mon, Oct 05, 2026 at 12:04:14PM -0300, Joao Detomini wrote:
> > Nothing to change from my side, v3 looks fine to me. I'll put it
> > back to Needs review for now, since Michael hasn't said whether he's
> > ok with -f not overriding the check.
>
> I'm maybe just not seeing the value of the patch, then, that's all, so
> I doubt that my opinion has any value.
>
> Please note that the community mailing lists follow the following
> style in terms of message posting:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Bottom-posting
> --
> Michael
>