From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, Abhijit Menon-Sen <ams(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Petr Jelinek <petr(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Sawada Masahiko <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Set new system identifier using pg_resetxlog |
Date: | 2014-07-01 15:11:12 |
Message-ID: | CA+TgmoZXih6aiyefqAMzQ5wXkVWEQKzO+8+TFeHn3toi5z5Z4A@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 12:46 PM, Alvaro Herrera
<alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> I think it's pretty much a given that pg_resetxlog is a tool that can
> have disastrous effects if used lightly. If people changes their sysid
> wrongly, they're not any worse than if they change their multixact
> counters and start getting failures because the old values stored in
> data cannot be resolved anymore ("it's already been wrapped around").
> Or if they remove all the XLOG they have since the latest crash. From
> that POV, I don't think the objection that "but this can be used to
> corrupt data!" has any value.
After thinking about this a little more, I guess I don't really think
it's a bit problem either - so consider my objection withdrawn.
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.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2014-07-01 15:19:02 | Re: Set new system identifier using pg_resetxlog |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2014-07-01 14:46:41 | Re: WAL format and API changes (9.5) |