Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> writes: > On 2019-03-01 14:17:33 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: >> I think we should reject the whole patch, tbh, and go do something >> about the underlying problem instead. Once we've made truncation >> not require AEL, this will be nothing but a legacy wart that we'll >> have a hard time getting rid of.
> IDK, it's really painful in the field, and I'm not quite seeing us > getting rid of the AEL for v12. Dunno, I was musing about it just yesterday, in https://postgr.es/m/1261.1551392...@sss.pgh.pa.us I'd sure rather spend time making that happen than this. I'm also not entirely convinced that we MUST do something about this in v12 rather than v13 --- we've been living with it ever since we had in-core replication, why's it suddenly so critical? > I think it's a wart, but one that works > around a pretty important usability issue. And I think we should just > remove the GUC without any sort of deprecation afterwards, if necessary > we can add a note to the docs to that effect. It's not like preventing > truncation from happening is a very intrusive / dangerous thing to do. Well, if we add a reloption then we can never ever get rid of it; at best we could ignore it. So from the perspective of how-fast-can-we- deprecate-this, maybe a GUC is the better answer. On the other hand, I'm not sure I believe that many installations could afford to disable truncation for every single table. regards, tom lane