On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 7:02 PM, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > I'd prefer a solution that was not dependent upon RmgrID at all. > > If there are various special cases that we need to cater for, ISTM > they would be flaws in the existing WAL implementation rather than > anything we would want to perpetuate. I hope we'll spend time fixing > them rather than add loads of weird code to work around the > imperfections. > > Underdocumented special case code is going to be unbelievably > difficult to get right in the long term.
It seems to me that you may be conflating the issue of which changes should be masked out as hints (which is, indeed, special case code, whether underdocumented or not) with the issue of which rmgrs the user may want to verify (which is just a case of matching the rmgr ID in the WAL record against a list provided by the user, and is not special case code at all). -- 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
