Re: Rework the way multixact truncations work

On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 10:48 PM, Jim Nasby <Jim.Nasby@bluetreble.com> wrote:
> Maybe I'm confused, but I thought the whole purpose of this was to get rid
> of the risk associated with that calculation in favor of explicit truncation
> boundaries in the WAL log.

Yes.  But if the master hasn't been updated yet, then we still need to
do something based on a calculation.

> Even if that's not the case, ISTM that being big and in your face about a
> potential data corruption bug is a good thing, as long as the DBA has a way
> to "hit the snooze button".

Panicking the standby because the master hasn't been updated does not
seem like a good thing to me in any way.

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