On Thu, 2009-01-08 at 15:04 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> writes: > > On Thu, 2009-01-08 at 14:19 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > >> If the btree in question is a critical system index, your value of > >> "work" is going to be pretty damn small. > > > So if its a system index we can throw a PANIC, else just LOG. Whilst a > > corrupt index is annoying in the extreme, a total server outage is not > > something we should allow. IMHO. > > I think an appropriate solution would be to institute some mechanism > that forces a reindex of the corrupted index at completion of recovery. > Merely fooling around with message severity levels doesn't fix anything > at all, it just opens the door to more trouble than you've already got.
Well you know I agree on the longer term solution. But with a down server, you just force people to do pg_resetxlog, which loses both the corruption (probably) and real, useful data (likely) and *then* they bring up the server. I don't see why we should force people to take a manual action and lose data to bring up the server. It's not like they'll just look at it and say how much of a shame it is it won't start. They will be bringing up the server, somehow, or they get the sack. IMHO. I'll say no more though; its not an argument. -- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support -- Sent via pgsql-bugs mailing list (pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-bugs
