From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila(at)huawei(dot)com> |
Cc: | "'Alvaro Herrera'" <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, 'Cédric Villemain' <cedric(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "'Pg Hackers'" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "'Robert Haas'" <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: Allow WAL information to recover corrupted pg_controldata |
Date: | 2012-06-19 05:43:18 |
Message-ID: | 4274.1340084598@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila(at)huawei(dot)com> writes:
>> AFAIR you can create pg_control from scratch already with pg_resetxlog.
>> The hard part is coming up with values for the counters, such as the
>> next WAL location. Some of them such as next OID are pretty harmless
>> if you don't guess right, but I'm worried that wrong next WAL could
>> make things worse not better.
> I believe if WAL files are proper as mentioned in Alvaro's mail, the
> purposed logic should generate correct values.
I've got a problem with the assumption that, when pg_control is trash,
megabytes or gigabytes of WAL can still be relied on completely.
I'm almost inclined to suggest that we not get next-LSN from WAL, but
by scanning all the pages in the main data store and computing the max
observed LSN. This is clearly not very attractive from a performance
standpoint, but it would avoid the obvious failure mode where you lost
some recent WAL segments along with pg_control.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2012-06-19 05:56:33 | Re: Transactions over pathological TCP connections |
Previous Message | Josh Kupershmidt | 2012-06-19 04:16:57 | Re: patch: autocomplete for functions |