On Thu, 2006-02-23 at 11:54 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > A patch prototype to make zero_damaged_pages work as advertised is > > enclosed, though the current behaviour may well be preferred, in which > > case a doc patch is more appropriate. > > I don't think this is a good idea, and even if it were, the proposed > patch is a model of obscurantism.
;-) Just some reflections on a recent db recovery for a client. > > However, since autovacuum the window of opportunity for support to > > assist with data recovery is smaller and somewhat random. > > Hmm .... it'd probably be a good idea to force zero_damaged_pages OFF in > the autovac subprocess. That parameter is only intended for interactive > use --- as you say, autovac would be a rather nasty loose cannon if it > fired up with this parameter ON. We can: - disable zero_damaged_pages in autovac - update the docs to say don't set this in postgresql.conf > Are there any other things that ought to be disabled in autovac? Good question. Not AFAICS. Best Regards, Simon Riggs ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
