Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Not sure where this leads to, but it's not leading to an undocumented
> >> one-line hack in tqual.c, and definitely not *that* one-line hack.
>
> > Sorry, here is the proper change I just applied:
>
> > /* This is to be used only for disaster recovery and requires serious analysis. */
> > #ifndef MAKE_ALL_TUPLES_VISIBLE
> > return false;
> > #else
> > return true;
> > #endif
>
> AFAICS this has no value whatsoever. Assuming that someone has a
> disaster recovery problem on their hands, how likely is it that they
> will know that that code is there, or be able to turn it on (most
> users don't compile from source anymore), or be able to use it
> effectively, given the complete lack of documentation? As is, this
> is of value only to someone familiar with the code, and such a someone
> could go in and modify the logic for themselves just as easily as
> turn on a #define.
>
> I think the only real effect of this patch will be to confuse people
> who are reading the source code. tqual.c is already complicated and
> fragile enough --- it doesn't need conditionally compiled "features"
> that we can't even explain the use of.
I need a note somewhere to remember where to tell people to modify the
code to recovery something. Do you have a better idea? You want just a
comment rather than a define?
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
