On Wed, 14 Feb 2001, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Tom Lane writes:
>
> > Thomas Lockhart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > Also, could the "-F" option be disabled now that WAL is enabled? Or is
> > > there still some reason to encourage/allow folks to use it?
> >
> > I was the one who put it back i
> Tom Lane writes:
>
> > Thomas Lockhart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > Also, could the "-F" option be disabled now that WAL is enabled? Or is
> > > there still some reason to encourage/allow folks to use it?
> >
> > I was the one who put it back in after Vadim turned it off ;-) ... and
> > I'
Tom Lane writes:
> Thomas Lockhart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Also, could the "-F" option be disabled now that WAL is enabled? Or is
> > there still some reason to encourage/allow folks to use it?
>
> I was the one who put it back in after Vadim turned it off ;-) ... and
> I'll object to any
Thomas Lockhart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Also, could the "-F" option be disabled now that WAL is enabled? Or is
> there still some reason to encourage/allow folks to use it?
I was the one who put it back in after Vadim turned it off ;-) ... and
I'll object to any attempt to remove the option
> Since there is a fundamental recovery problem if the WAL file
> disappears, then perhaps we should have a workaround which can ignore
> the requirement for that file on startup? Or maybe we do already?
> Vadim??
>
> Also, could the "-F" option be disabled now that WAL is enabled? Or is
> there
