On Jun 3, 2010, at 5:25 , Robert Haas wrote:
On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 10:34 PM, Florian Pflug f...@phlo.org wrote:
Oh. Well, if that's the case, then I guess I lean toward applying the
patch as-is. Then there's no need for the caveat and without manual
intervention.
That still leaves the
On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 8:21 PM, Florian Pflug f...@phlo.org wrote:
On Jun 3, 2010, at 5:25 , Robert Haas wrote:
On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 10:34 PM, Florian Pflug f...@phlo.org wrote:
Oh. Well, if that's the case, then I guess I lean toward applying the
patch as-is. Then there's no need for the
On Sat, Jun 5, 2010 at 2:20 AM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
I've tried to keep this as similar as possible to the existing message while
making it less ambiguous about cause and effect.
If this has occurred more than once corrupt data might be the cause and you
might need to
On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 4:33 AM, Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, May 15, 2010 at 3:20 AM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
Hmm, OK, I think that makes sense. Would you care to propose a patch?
Yep. Here is the patch.
This patch distinguishes normal shutdown from
On 02/06/10 23:50, Robert Haas wrote:
First, is it appropriate to set the control file state to
DB_SHUTDOWNED_IN_RECOVERY even when we're in crash recovery (as
opposed to archive recovery/SR)? My vote is no, but Heikki thought it
might be OK.
My logic on that is:
If the database is known to
On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 5:39 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com wrote:
On 02/06/10 23:50, Robert Haas wrote:
First, is it appropriate to set the control file state to
DB_SHUTDOWNED_IN_RECOVERY even when we're in crash recovery (as
opposed to archive recovery/SR)? My
On Jun 3, 2010, at 0:58 , Robert Haas wrote:
But maybe the message isn't right the first time either. After all
the point of having a write-ahead log in the first place is that we
should be able to prevent corruption in the event of an unexpected
shutdown. Maybe the right thing to do is to
On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 9:07 PM, Florian Pflug f...@phlo.org wrote:
On Jun 3, 2010, at 0:58 , Robert Haas wrote:
But maybe the message isn't right the first time either. After all
the point of having a write-ahead log in the first place is that we
should be able to prevent corruption in the
On Jun 3, 2010, at 3:31 , Robert Haas wrote:
On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 9:07 PM, Florian Pflug f...@phlo.org wrote:
On Jun 3, 2010, at 0:58 , Robert Haas wrote:
But maybe the message isn't right the first time either. After all
the point of having a write-ahead log in the first place is that we
On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 10:34 PM, Florian Pflug f...@phlo.org wrote:
Oh. Well, if that's the case, then I guess I lean toward applying the
patch as-is. Then there's no need for the caveat and without manual
intervention.
That still leaves the messages awfully ambiguous concerning the cause
On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 5:33 PM, Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, May 15, 2010 at 3:20 AM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
Hmm, OK, I think that makes sense. Would you care to propose a patch?
Yep. Here is the patch.
This patch distinguishes normal shutdown from
On Tue, 2010-05-25 at 19:12 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 5:33 PM, Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, May 15, 2010 at 3:20 AM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
Hmm, OK, I think that makes sense. Would you care to propose a patch?
Yep. Here is the
On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 12:36 PM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On Tue, 2010-05-25 at 19:12 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 5:33 PM, Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, May 15, 2010 at 3:20 AM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
Hmm, OK, I
On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 1:28 AM, Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 12:10 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
Hmm, it seems this is my night to rediscover the wisdom of your
previous proposals. I think that state would only be appropriate when
we
When firing up a properly shut down HS slave, I get:
LOG: database system was interrupted while in recovery at log time
2010-05-12 20:35:24 EDT
HINT: If this has occurred more than once some data might be
corrupted and you might need to choose an earlier recovery target.
But this is kind of an
On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 10:01 AM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
When firing up a properly shut down HS slave, I get:
LOG: database system was interrupted while in recovery at log time
2010-05-12 20:35:24 EDT
HINT: If this has occurred more than once some data might be
corrupted
On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 11:07 PM, Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 10:01 AM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
When firing up a properly shut down HS slave, I get:
LOG: database system was interrupted while in recovery at log time
2010-05-12 20:35:24
On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 12:10 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
Hmm, it seems this is my night to rediscover the wisdom of your
previous proposals. I think that state would only be appropriate when
we shutdown after reaching consistency, not any shutdown during
recovery. Do you
18 matches
Mail list logo