Re: quick review

On Tue, 2006-11-21 at 16:18 -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> >> Unless you have buggy hardware, there is no need for a repair tool.
> >> That is our position.
> >>
> >
> > And when I mentioned that to two of my largest customers, they both
> > looked at me like I had lost my mind.
> >
> > Something to think about.
> >
> >
>
> Now ask your clients what errors they see that could be fixed by a
> repair tool. I think Bruce's formulation is unfortunate, and would look
> better like this: When we find that there is a bug that causes data
> corruption we fix the bug rather than supplying a workaround. Our
> position is that repair tools are mostly a bandaid, and we would rather
> fix the problem.

I have a customer right now, that has a corrupted table. The table would
be fixed by deleting a couple of rows. Now, I don't know if this is true
but I could find it useful to do something like:

table_check -U postgres -D foo -t corrupted_table

WARNING: 2 rows bad, writing out to disk
NOTICE: 100000 million rows cleaned
NOTICE: table corrupted_table clean

Then I could go to a file and get some semblence of information on what
rows were bad so I could find them from an old backup or something.

The reason this is important is that a single bad row in a 500Gb
database, prevents backups.

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake

> cheers
>
> andrew
>
--

=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997
http://www.commandprompt.com/

Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate