Re: ALTER TABLE lock strength reduction patch is unsafe

On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 07:30:47PM +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> On 01/28/2014 07:26 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 07:21:50PM +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> >>>>I have no problem removing the parameter if required to. In that case,
> >>>>I would like to leave the parameter in until mid beta, to allow
> >>>>greater certainty. In any case, I would wish to retain as a minimum an
> >>>>extern bool variable allowing it to be turned off by C function if
> >>>>desired.
> >>>
> >>>Anything changed to postgresql.conf during beta is going to require an
> >>>initdb.
> >>
> >>Huh? Surely not.
> >
> >Uh, if we ship beta1 with a GUC in postgresql.conf, and then we remove
> >support for the GUC in beta2, anyone starting a server initdb-ed with
> >beta1 is going to get an error and the server is not going to start:
> >
> > LOG: unrecognized configuration parameter "xxx" in file "/u/pgsql/data/postgresql.conf" line 1
> > FATAL: configuration file "/u/pgsql/data/postgresql.conf" contains errors
> >
> >so, yeah, it isn't going to require an initdb, but it is going to
> >require everyone to edit their postgresql.conf.
>
> Only if you uncommented the value in the first place.

Oh, I had forgotten that. Right. It would still be odd to have a
commented-out line in postgresql.conf that was not support.

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

+ Everyone has their own god. +