On Thu, Oct 12, 2023 at 1:10 PM Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Oct 12, 2023 at 12:01 PM Peter Geoghegan <p...@bowt.ie> wrote: > > No objections from me. > > Here is a doc-only patch that I think could be back-patched as far as > emergency mode exists. It combines all of the wording changes to the > documentation from v1-v3 of the previous version, but without changing > the message text that is quoted in the documentation, and without > adding more instances of similar message texts to the documentation, > and with a bunch of additional hacking by me.
It's a bit weird that we're effectively saying "pay no attention to that terrible HINT"...but I get it. The simple fact is that the docs were written in a way that allowed misinformation to catch on -- the damage that needs to be undone isn't exactly limited to the docs themselves. Your choice to not backpatch the changes to the log messages makes a lot more sense, now that I see that I see the wider context built by this preparatory patch. Arguably, it would be counterproductive to pretend that we didn't make this mistake on the backbranches. Better to own the mistake. > Some things I changed: > > - I made it so that the MXID section refers back to the XID section > instead of duplicating it, but with a short list of differences. > - I weakened the existing claim that says you must be a superuser or > VACUUM definitely won't fix it to say instead that you SHOULD run > VACUUM as the superuser, because the former is false and the latter is > true. > - I made the list of steps for recovering more explicit. > - I split out the bit about running autovacuum in the affected > database into a separate step to be performed after VACUUM for > continued good operation, rather than a necessary ingredient in > recovery, because it isn't. > - A bit of other minor rejiggering. Those all make sense to me. > I'm not forgetting about the rest of the proposed patch set, or the > change I proposed earlier. I'm just posting this much now because this > is how far I got today, and it would be useful to get comments before > I go further. I think the residual portion of the patch set not > included in this documentation patch will be quite small, and I think > that's a good thing, but again, I don't intend to blow that off. Of course. Your general approach seems wise. Thanks for working on this. I will be relieved once this is finally taken care of. -- Peter Geoghegan
