On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 3:43 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi.kyot...@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote: > Hello, > > At Wed, 19 Mar 2014 19:34:10 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote >> > Agreed. Attached patches do that and I could "recover" the >> > database state with following steps, >> >> Adding new option looks like new feature rather than bug fix. >> I'm afraid that the backpatch of such a change to 9.3 or before >> is not acceptable. > > Me too. But on the other hand it simplly is a relief for the > consequence of the behavior of server (altough it was ill > operation:), and especially it is needed for at least 9.1 which > seems cannot be saved without it. Plus it has utterly no impact > on servers' behavior of any corresponding versions. So I hope it > is accepted.
Even in 9.1, we can think that problematic situation as database corruption and restart the server from the backup which was successfully taken before. No? Regards, -- Fujii Masao -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
