Subject: Re: Commit/abort WAL records with dropped rels missing
 XLR_SPECIAL_REL_UPDATE
To: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>,
 Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
References: <07b33e2c-46a6-86a1-5f9e-a7da73fddb95@iki.fi>
 <CAA4eK1Lf-typx7ngR8igFqDRoayLQmUmQh0yMd=RAUrdPSg96Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <20200817070017.GE7787@paquier.xyz>
From: Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi>
Message-ID: <31bfe3aa-4962-955d-2f40-94de8b3e659a@iki.fi>
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2020 10:55:13 +0300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/68.11.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20200817070017.GE7787@paquier.xyz>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 17/08/2020 10:00, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 15, 2020 at 11:05:43AM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
>> On Fri, Aug 14, 2020 at 2:17 PM Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi> wrote:
>>> It's always been like that, but I am not going backport, for fear of
>>> breaking existing applications. If a program reads the WAL, and would
>>> actually need to do something with commit records dropping relations,
>>> that seems like such a common scenario that the author should've thought
>>> about it and handled it even without the flag reminding about it. Fixing
>>> it in master ought to be enough.
>>
>> +1 for doing it in master only. Even if someone comes up with such a
>> scenario for back-branches, we can revisit our decision to backport
>> this but like you, I also don't see any pressing need to do it now.
> 
> +1.

Pushed, thanks!

- Heikki