On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 9:07 PM, Florian Pflug <f...@phlo.org> wrote: > On Jun 3, 2010, at 0:58 , Robert Haas wrote: >> But maybe the message isn't right the first time either. After all >> the point of having a write-ahead log in the first place is that we >> should be able to prevent corruption in the event of an unexpected >> shutdown. Maybe the right thing to do is to forget about adding a new >> state and just remove or change the errhint from these messages: > > You've fallen prey to a (very common) miss-interpration of this message. It > is not about corruption *caused* by a crash during recovery, it's about > corruption *causing* the crash. > > I'm not in favor of getting rid of that message entirely, since produces a > worthwhile hint if the crash was really caused by corrupt data. But it > desperately needs a better wording that makes cause and effect perfectly > clear. That even you miss-read it conclusively proves that. > > How about > "If this has happened repeatedly and without manual intervention, it was > probably caused by corrupted data and you may need to restore from backup" > for the crash recovery case and > "If this has happened repeatedly and without manual intervention, it was > probably caused by corrupted data and you may need to choose an earlier > recovery target" > for the PITR case.
Oh. Well, if that's the case, then I guess I lean toward applying the patch as-is. Then there's no need for the caveat "and without manual intervention". -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise Postgres Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
