On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 9:01 PM, Fujii Masao <masao.fu...@gmail.com> wrote: > Agreed. But what log message is repeated depends on the situation. > So message without any location might be output. BTW, In my testing, > the following message was repeated. > > LOG: invalid magic number 0000 in log file 0, segment 14, offset 9617408
Yeah, that's a pain in the neck. We need to think about a way to avoid any of these messages repeating. Not sure how, off the top of my head. >> Should we make it shut down if it can't immediately read enough WAL to >> get to a consistent state, or just figure it's the user's job to fix >> it? > > I think that it's difficult for the user to fix it. So I agree to shut > down the server in that case, i.e., throw a FATAL when an invalid WAL > record is found and recovery hasn't reached the safe starting point > even if neither primary_conninfo nor restore_command is given. I think that's reasonable. It's not like this should cause any problem for the user: they can add the missing WAL while the server is down just as well as they could if it were up, and Hot Standby isn't going to come up anyway. But I could possibly be persuaded to change my mind on this one, if someone feels strongly otherwise. ...Robert -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
