On Tue, Dec 1, 2020 at 3:55 PM Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 06:59:40PM +1300, Thomas Munro wrote:
> > So I fixed that, by adding a return value to do_truncate() and
> > checking it. That's the version I plan to commit tomorrow, unless
> > there are further comments or objections. I've also attached a
> > version suitable for REL_11_STABLE and earlier branches (with a name
> > that cfbot should ignore), where things are slightly different. In
> > those branches, the register_forget_request() logic is elsewhere.
>
> Hmm. Sorry for arriving late at the party. But is that really
> something suitable for a backpatch? Sure, it is not optimal to not
> truncate all the segments when a transaction dropping a relation
> commits, but this was not completely broken either.
I felt on balance it was a "bug", since it causes operational
difficulties for people and was clearly not our intended behaviour,
and I announced this intention 6 weeks ago. Of course I'll be happy
to revert it from the back-branches if that's the consensus. Any
other opinions?
