Re: WAL replay failure after file truncation(?)

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(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073