Bruce Momjian writes:
>> On Thu, 2006-02-23 at 11:54 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Hmm it'd probably be a good idea to force zero_damaged_pages OFF in
>>> the autovac subprocess. That parameter is only intended for interactive
>>> use --- as you say, autovac would be a rather nasty loose cannon
Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Thu, 2006-02-23 at 11:54 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > A patch prototype to make zero_damaged_pages work as advertised is
> > > enclosed, though the current behaviour may well be preferred, in which
> > > case a doc patch is more ap
On Thu, 2006-02-23 at 11:54 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > A patch prototype to make zero_damaged_pages work as advertised is
> > enclosed, though the current behaviour may well be preferred, in which
> > case a doc patch is more appropriate.
>
> I don't thin
Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> A patch prototype to make zero_damaged_pages work as advertised is
> enclosed, though the current behaviour may well be preferred, in which
> case a doc patch is more appropriate.
I don't think this is a good idea, and even if it were, the proposed
patch
There appears to be some issues or at least a lack of clarity with the
way we zero damaged/missing pages in various circumstances.
1. If we have an invalid page header then we execute the code below
(from bufmgr.c ReadBuffer()).. In the case that we are only reading the
page, not writing to it,
