Re: ALTER TABLE lock strength reduction patch is unsafe

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.

- Heikki