On Mon, 2004-07-19 at 17:56, Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >> I had second thoughts about that and didn't do it in the committed
> >> patch, though it's certainly still open for debate.
> > How are we handling a crash during recovery?
> Retry, perhaps.  It doesn't seem any different from crash-during-recovery
> in the non-archived scenario ...

Well, a recovery is just re-applying already written logs at super
speed. We don't need to write WAL because we already wrote it once (and
that would really confuse the timeline issue).

I think if this was an issue, the solution would be to speed up recovery
since that would benefit us more than putting recovery-squared code in.

Just start over...

Best Regards, Simon Riggs

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster

Reply via email to