On Tue, May 16, 2023 at 10:20 AM Evgeny Morozov < postgres...@realityexists.net> wrote:
> On 9/05/2023 3:32 am, Andres Freund wrote: > > Attached is a rough prototype of that idea (only using datconnlimit == > > -2 for now). > > I guess we need to move this to -hackers. Perhaps I'll post subsequent > > versions below > > > https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20230314174521.74jl6ffqsee5mtug%40awork3.anarazel.de > ? > So now that a patch is in the works, can I drop the two corrupted > databases? Is there a workaround I can use to reduce the risk of running > into this issue again until a patch is released? (Which I guess would be > in August?) > The only work around to avoid losing data that I know of are backups and WAL backups. Plus "hard core testing/validation" that they work. We settled on pg_backrest and are happy with it. Technically, based on what I understand of this bug. It did not corrupt the WAL. If that's true, then if you had a basebackup and all the wall files, you could have played back and recovered the data. At least to some degree. Assuming I am right. HTH
