On Tue, Mar 28, 2006 at 10:07:35AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> > On Mon, 2006-03-27 at 22:03 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> The subsequent replay of the deletion or truncation
> >> will get rid of any unwanted data again.
>
> > Trouble is, it is not a watertight assumption that there *will be* a
> > subsequent truncation, even if it is a strong one.
>
> Well, in fact we'll have correctly recreated the page, so I'm not
> thinking that it's necessary or desirable to check this. What's the
> point? "PANIC: we think your filesystem screwed up. We don't know
> exactly how or why, and we successfully rebuilt all our data, but
> we're gonna refuse to start up anyway." Doesn't seem like robust
> behavior to me. If you check the archives you'll find that we've
> backed off panic-for-panic's-sake behaviors in replay several times
> before, after concluding they made the system less robust rather than
> more so. This just seems like another one of the same.
Would the suggestion made in
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2005-05/msg01374.php help
in this regard? (Sorry, much of this is over my head, but not everyone
may have read that...)
--
Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com
Pervasive Software http://pervasive.com work: 512-231-6117
vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461