Re: [PG19-3 PATCH] Don't ignore passfile

From: Jacob Champion <jacob(dot)champion(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Paul Ohlhauser <bendix(dot)ohlhauser(at)gmail(dot)com>, postgresql(dot)cache976(at)passmail(dot)net, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [PG19-3 PATCH] Don't ignore passfile
Date: 2025-09-08 18:29:22
Message-ID: CAOYmi+k=7qOgczS_=CTbQAFJKDeju=kgnFrYd+HM-X0x+ROLnA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, Sep 8, 2025 at 10:46 AM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> > Changing the warning to an error wouldn't bother me a great deal, but
> > we'd probably need more than just you voting for that alternative to
> > justify overturning longstanding behavior.
>
> Agreed.

I think I'm starting to lean in the direction of "error rather than
warning", personally... Not a real vote yet; I'm not sure I understand
the compatibility fallout. Like, who would be angry if we did that?

No opinion on group read. But we should absolutely clarify the warning message.

--Jacob

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Melanie Plageman 2025-09-08 18:32:29 Re: eliminate xl_heap_visible to reduce WAL (and eventually set VM on-access)
Previous Message Nathan Bossart 2025-09-08 18:24:32 Re: GetNamedLWLockTranche crashes on Windows in normal backend