On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 9:49 PM, Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 10:52:51AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>> I would just document the risks. If the documentation says that you
>> can't rely on the value until after the next checkpoint, or whatever
>> the rule is, then I think we're fine. I don't think that we really
>> have the infrastructure to do any better; if we try, we'll just end up
>> with odd warts. Documenting the current set of warts is less churn
>> and less work.
>
> The last version of the patch proposed has eaten this diff which was
> part of one of the past versions (v2-0001-Change-FPW-handling.patch from
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20180412.103430.133595350.horiguchi.kyotaro%40lab.ntt.co.jp):
> + The default is <literal>on</literal>. The change of the parameter takes
> + effect at the next checkpoint time.
> So there were some documentation about the beHavior change for what it's
> worth.
Fine, but that doesn't answer the question of whether we actually need
to or should change the behavior in the first place.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company