Re: truncating pg_multixact/members

On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 2:53 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> On Sat, Jan 4, 2014 at 12:38 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>>> Keep in mind that 9.3 is still wet behind the ears and many many people
>>> haven't adopted it yet. If we do what you're suggesting then we're
>>> creating a completely useless inconsistency that will nonetheless affect
>>> all those future adopters ... while accomplishing nothing much for those
>>> who have already installed 9.3. The latter are not going to have these
>>> GUCs in their existing postgresql.conf, true, but there's nothing we can
>>> do about that. (Hint: GUC_NOT_IN_SAMPLE doesn't actually *do* anything,
>>> other than prevent the variable from being shown by SHOW ALL, which is not
>>> exactly helpful here.)
>
>> Well, I guess what I'm really wondering is whether we should refrain
>> from patching postgresql.conf.sample in 9.3, even if we add the GUC,
>> just because people may have existing configuration files that they've
>> already modified, and it could perhaps create confusion.
>
> If we don't update postgresql.conf.sample then we'll just be creating
> different confusion. My argument above is that many more people are
> likely to be affected in the future by an omission in
> postgresql.conf.sample than would be affected now by an inconsistency
> between postgresql.conf.sample and their actual conf file.

I don't really have a horse in the race, so I'm OK with that if that's
the consensus.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company