On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 10:34 PM, Florian Pflug <f...@phlo.org> wrote: >> Oh. Well, if that's the case, then I guess I lean toward applying the >> patch as-is. Then there's no need for the caveat "and without manual >> intervention". > > That still leaves the messages awfully ambiguous concerning the cause (data > corruption) and the effect (crash during recovery). > > How about > "If this has occurred more than once, it is probably caused by corrupt data > and you have to use the latest backup for recovery" > for the crash recovery case and > "If this has occurred more than once, it is probably caused by corrupt data > and you have to choose an earlier recovery target" > for the PITR case. > > I don't see why currently only the PITR-case includes the "more than once" > clause. Its probably supposed to prevent unnecessarily alarming the user if > the "crash" was in fact a stray SIGKILL or an out-of-memory condition, which > seems equally likely in both cases.
I've applied the patch for now - we can fix the wording of the other messages with a follow-on patch if we agree on what they should say. I don't like the use of the phrase "you have to", particularly... I would tend to leave the archive recovery message alone and change the crash recovery message to be more like it. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise Postgres Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
