Re: production server down

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com>
Cc: "Hackers (PostgreSQL)" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: production server down
Date: 2004-12-15 17:05:54
Message-ID: 2608.1103130354@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> writes:
> Before running pg_resetxlog, a couple of questions:

> 1. Since it appears that pg_control is suspect, should I force it to be
> rebuilt, and if so, how?

pg_resetxlog will rebuild it in any case. However it will re-use the
existing contents as much as it can (if you don't use any of the command
line options to override values). Given Alvaro's observation that the
existing file looks suspiciously close to a freshly-initdb'd one, I
don't think you want to trust the existing contents.

> 2. At the end of GuessControlValues is this comment:
> /*
> * XXX eventually, should try to grovel through old XLOG to develop
> * more accurate values for startupid, nextXID, and nextOID.
> */
> What would be involved in doing this, and do you think it would be
> worth it?

What if anything have you got in $PGDATA/pg_xlog?

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Dave Cramer 2004-12-15 17:06:46 Re: postgresql-7.4.5
Previous Message Jan Wieck 2004-12-15 16:59:09 Re: bgwriter changes