On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 10:42 AM, Amit Langote <langote_amit...@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote: > I too tend to think that any users who use this masking facility would > know to expect to get these failures on upgraded clusters with invalid > pd_lower in meta pages.
Yes, I don't think that an optimization reducing WAL that impacts all users should be stopped by a small set of users who use an option for development purposes. > (PS: I wonder if it is reasonable to allow configuring the error level > used when a masking failure occurs? Currently, checkXLogConsistency() > will abort the process (FATAL)) It definitely is worth it in my opinion, perhaps with an on/off switch to trigger a warning instead. The reason why we use FATAL now is to trigger more easily red flags for any potential buildfarm runs: a startup process facing FATAL takes down the standby. >> Perhaps we should document this point for wal_consistency_check? > > Do you mean permanently under wal_consistency_check parameter > documentation or in the release notes under incompatibilities for the > affected index types? Under the parameter itself, in the spirit of a don't-do-that from an upgraded instance. -- Michael -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
