Greg Stark <st...@mit.edu> writes:
> On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 6:55 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> Greg Stark <st...@mit.edu> writes:
>>> This does possibly allocate an extra block past the target block. I'm
>>> not sure how surprising that would be for the rest of the code.
>> Should be fine; we could end up with an extra block after a failed
>> extension operation in any case.
> I know it's fine on the active database, I'm not so clear whether it's
> compatible with the xlog records from the primary. I suppose it'll
> just see an Initialize Page record and happily see the nul block and
> initialize it. It's still a bit scary.
Well, we can easily find uninitialized extra pages on the primary too,
so if WAL replay were unable to cope with that, it would be a bug
regardless.
>> Huh? Bug in wal-e? What bug?
> WAL-E actually didn't restore a whole 1GB file due to a transient S3
> problem, in fact a bunch of them.
Hah. Okay, I think we can write this issue off as closed then.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
