On 2016-06-03 14:00:00 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 8:44 PM, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
> > I'm not convinced of that. Hiding unexpected issues for longer, just to
> > continue kind-of-operating, can make the impact of problems a lot worse,
> > and it makes it very hard to actually learn about the issues.
>
> So if we made this a WARNING rather than an ERROR, it wouldn't hiding
> the issue, but it would be less likely to break things that worked
> before. No?
Except that we're then accepting the (proven!) potential for data
loss. We're talking about a single report of an restore_command setting
odd permissions. Which can easily be fixed. And the permission setting
already has downsides, e.g. for the switch between archive and streaming
recovery (which would fail).
Andres
