On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 1:47 PM Michael Paquier <mich...@paquier.xyz> wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 16, 2020 at 11:17:36PM +0900, Fujii Masao wrote: > > OK, I updated the patch that way. > > Attached is the updated version of the patch. > > Thanks. I have few tweaks to propose to the docs. > > + raise a PANIC-level error, aborting the recovery. Setting > Instead of "PANIC-level error", I would just use "PANIC error", and
I have no strong opinion about this, but I used "PANIC-level error" because the description for data_sync_retry has already used it. > instead of "aborting the recovery" just "crashing the server". PANIC implies server crash, so IMO "crashing the server" is a bit redundant, and "aborting the recovery" is better because "continue the recovery" is used later. > + causes the system to ignore those WAL records > WAL records are not ignored, but errors caused by incorrect page > references in those WAL records are. The current phrasing sounds like > the WAL records are not applied. So, what about --------------- causes the system to ignore invalid page references in WAL records (but still report a warning), and continue the recovery. --------------- > Another thing that I just recalled. Do you think that it would be > better to mention that invalid page references can only be seen after > reaching the consistent point during recovery? The information given > looks enough, but I was just wondering if that's worth documenting or > not. ISTM that this is not the information that users should understand... Regards, -- Fujii Masao
