Re: Did we really want to force an initdb in beta2?

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Did we really want to force an initdb in beta2?
Date: 2010-06-03 17:00:49
Message-ID: 6618.1275584449@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> On 03/06/10 19:16, Tom Lane wrote:
>> What exactly was the reason for this patch? Could it be held over till
>> 9.1?

> Before the patch, when you shut down a standby server, you get this
> message in the log on the next startup:

> LOG: database system was interrupted while in recovery at log time
> 2010-06-02 14:48:28 EEST
> HINT: If this has occurred more than once some data might be corrupted
> and you might need to choose an earlier recovery target.

> The problem is that that hint is pretty alarming.

Maybe we should just get rid of the hint.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Simon Riggs 2010-06-03 17:18:24 Re: Keepalive for max_standby_delay
Previous Message Tom Lane 2010-06-03 16:58:45 Re: Keepalive for max_standby_delay