>Yeah, the normal workaround is to create the necessary file manually in >order to let the system start after such an operation; they are >sometimes necessary to enable testing weird cases with wraparound and >such. So a total rejection to work for these cases would be unhelpful >precisely for the scenario that those switches were intended to serve. I think these words should appear in pg_resetwal document if we decide to do nothing for this issue.
>Maybe a better answer is to have a new switch in postmaster that creates >any needed files (incl. producing associated WAL etc); so you'd run >pg_resetwal -x some-value >postmaster --create-special-stuff >then start your server and off you go. As shown in the document, it looks like to rule a safe input, so I think it's better to rule it and add an option to focus write an unsafe value if necessary. >Now maybe this is too much complication for a mechanism that really >isn't for general consumption anyway. I mean, if you're using >pg_resetwal, you're already playing with fire. Yes, that's true, I always heard the word "You'd better not use pg_walreset". But the tool appear in PG code, it's better to improve it than do nothing. Regards, Highgo Software (Canada/China/Pakistan) URL : www.highgo.ca EMAIL: mailto:movead(dot)li(at)highgo(dot)ca
