On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 11:12 PM, Florian Pflug <f...@phlo.org> wrote: > On Sep29, 2011, at 13:49 , Simon Riggs wrote: >> This worries me slightly now though because the patch makes us PANIC >> in a place we didn't used to and once we do that we cannot restart the >> server at all. Are we sure we want that? It's certainly a great way to >> shake down errors in other code... > > The patch only introduces a new PANIC condition during archive recovery, > though. Crash recovery is unaffected, except that we no longer create > restart points before we reach consistency. > > Also, if we hit an invalid page reference after reaching consistency, > the cause is probably either a bug in our recovery code, or (quite unlikely) > a corrupted WAL that passed the CRC check. In both cases, the likelyhood > of data-corruption seems high, so PANICing seems like the right thing to do.
Fair enough. We might be able to use FATAL or ERROR instead of PANIC because they also cause all processes to exit when the startup process emits them. For example, we now use FATAL to stop the server in recovery mode when recovery is about to end before we've reached a consistent state. Regards, -- Fujii Masao NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION NTT Open Source Software Center -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
