From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-committers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: pgsql: rm_cleanup functions need to be allowed to write WAL entries. |
Date: | 2009-08-10 19:09:20 |
Message-ID: | 200908101909.n7AJ9Km26419@momjian.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-committers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> writes:
> > On Sun, 2009-08-09 at 11:41 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Er, what's the point of that?
>
> > Rebuilding damaged indexes automatically, rather than barfing. I regard
> > that as a long term extension of crash recovery to bring a database back
> > to a usable state.
>
> Having crash recovery auto-rebuild indexes it thinks are damaged seems
> to me to be a pretty horrid idea. Just for starters, it would overwrite
> forensic evidence about the cause of the damage. A DBA might not wish
> the rebuild to happen *right then* in any case.
Are hash indexes going to need auto-rebuild, or can we make them
WAL-safe eventually?
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2009-08-10 19:15:00 | Re: pgsql: rm_cleanup functions need to be allowed to write WAL entries. |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2009-08-10 18:29:27 | pgsql: Support EEEE (scientific notation) in to_char(). |