| From: | "Dann Corbit" <DCorbit(at)connx(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Christopher Kings-Lynne" <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au> |
| Cc: | "PostgreSQL-development" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Disaster! |
| Date: | 2004-01-23 21:07:24 |
| Message-ID: | D90A5A6C612A39408103E6ECDD77B8294CE5AA@voyager.corporate.connx.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tom Lane [mailto:tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us]
> Sent: Friday, January 23, 2004 1:01 PM
> To: Christopher Kings-Lynne
> Cc: PostgreSQL-development
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Disaster!
>
>
> Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au> writes:
> > Now I can start it up! Thanks!
>
> > What should I do now?
>
> Go home and get some sleep ;-). If the WAL replay succeeded,
> you're up and running, nothing else to do.
This seems a very serious problem, if a database can be broken [into a
non-startable condition] by running out of space.
Is it certain that no data was lost?
If it is totally safe to extend the WAL file with zeros and restart, why
not build it into PostgreSQL to do so automatically?
Can I get a 15 sentence speech on what happened, what the repair did,
and why we know that the result can be trusted?
I think it would reassure more than just myself.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Rod Taylor | 2004-01-23 21:12:32 | Re: Disaster! |
| Previous Message | Christopher Kings-Lynne | 2004-01-23 21:06:28 | Re: Disaster! |