On Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 11:19 AM, Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >> I am, however, kind of frustrated, still, that the pg_computemaxlsn >> patch, which I thought was rather a good idea, was scuttled by the >> essentially that same objection: let's not extend pg_resetxlog & >> friends because people might use the new functionality to do bad >> things and then blame us. > > Well, the reasons were a bit different. Senior community members > repeatedly suggested that it'd be usable for faillback - and it's not a > unreasonable to think it is. Even though it'd fail subtly because of > hint bit and related reasons. > In contrast you have to be pretty desperate to think that you could make > two clusters replicate from each other by just fudging pg_control long > enough, even if the clusters aren't actually related.
Well, I still think it's pretty likely someone could make that mistake here, too. Maybe not a senior community member, but somebody. However, I think the right answer in that case and this one is to tell the person who has made the mistake "you screwed up" and move on. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
