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
