> Since there is a fundamental recovery problem if the WAL file > disappears, then perhaps we should have a workaround which can ignore > the requirement for that file on startup? Or maybe we do already? > Vadim?? > > Also, could the "-F" option be disabled now that WAL is enabled? Or is > there still some reason to encourage/allow folks to use it? The system still fsyncs, so -F is still useful, I think. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us [EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 853-3000 + If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue + Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
- Re: [HACKERS] Recovery of PGSQL after system crash failin... Tom Lane
- Re: [HACKERS] Recovery of PGSQL after system crash failin... Vadim Mikheev
- Re: [HACKERS] Recovery of PGSQL after system crash f... Ryan Kirkpatrick
- Re: [HACKERS] Recovery of PGSQL after system cra... Ryan Kirkpatrick
- Re: [HACKERS] Recovery of PGSQL after system cra... Tom Lane
- Re: [HACKERS] Recovery of PGSQL after system... Vadim Mikheev
- Re: [HACKERS] Recovery of PGSQL after sy... Ryan Kirkpatrick
- RE: [HACKERS] Recovery of PGSQL after system crash failin... Mikheev, Vadim
- RE: [HACKERS] Recovery of PGSQL after system crash f... Ryan Kirkpatrick
- [HACKERS] Re: Recovery of PGSQL after system cra... Thomas Lockhart
- Re: [HACKERS] Re: Recovery of PGSQL after sy... Bruce Momjian
- Re: [HACKERS] Re: Recovery of PGSQL after sy... Tom Lane
- Re: [HACKERS] Re: Recovery of PGSQL afte... Peter Eisentraut
- Re: [HACKERS] Re: Recovery of PGSQL... Bruce Momjian
- Re: [HACKERS] Re: Recovery of PGSQL... Ryan Kirkpatrick