>It may be OK actually; if you're doing multiple dangerous changes, you'd >use --dry-run beforehand ... No? (It's what *I* would do, for sure.) >Which in turns suggests that it would good to ensure that --dry-run >*also* emits a warning (not an error, so that any other warnings can >also be thrown and the user gets the full picture). Yes that's true, I have chaged the patch and will get a warning rather than error when we point a --dry-run option. And I remake the code which looks more clearly.
>I think adding multiple different --force switches makes the UI more >complex for little added value. Yes I also feel about that, but I can't convince myself to use --force to finish the mission, because --force is used when something wrong with pg_control file and we can listen to hackers' proposals. Regards, Highgo Software (Canada/China/Pakistan) URL : www.highgo.ca EMAIL: mailto:movead(dot)li(at)highgo(dot)ca
pg_resetwal_transaction_limit_v3.patch
Description: Binary data
