Tom Lane wrote: > Plan B is for WAL replay to always be willing to extend the file to > whatever record number is mentioned in the log, even though this > may require inventing the contents of empty pages; we trust that their > contents won't matter because they'll be truncated again later in the > replay sequence. This seems pretty messy though, especially for > indexes. The major objection to it is that it gives up error detection > in real filesystem-corruption cases: we'll just silently build an > invalid index and then try to run with it. (Still, that might be better > than refusing to start; at least you can REINDEX afterwards.)
Should we add a GUC to allow recovery in such cases, but don't mention it in postgresql.conf? This way we could give people a recovery solution, and also track the cases it happens, and not accidentally trigger the recovery case. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
