Tom Lane wrote:
This failure is actually entirely pointless, because (AFAIK) any page
that is brought in during WAL recovery is going to be overwritten in
toto from the WAL log. So it would be safe to run WAL recovery with
zero_damaged_pages enabled. Rather than expecting DBAs to think of that
On Sat, Nov 29, 2003 at 11:31:03AM -0800, Joe Conway wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
This failure is actually entirely pointless, because (AFAIK) any page
that is brought in during WAL recovery is going to be overwritten in
toto from the WAL log. So it would be safe to run WAL recovery with
Alvaro Herrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Yes, but is the error message going to stay verbatim? Maybe the
category could be decreased ...
The patch I proposed would still cause a WARNING to come out in the
postmaster log. We could perhaps reduce it to a NOTICE if InRecovery
is true, or have
