Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> A patch prototype to make zero_damaged_pages work as advertised is
> enclosed, though the current behaviour may well be preferred, in which
> case a doc patch is more appropriate.
I don't think this is a good idea, and even if it were, the proposed
patch is a model of obscurantism.
> However, since autovacuum the window of opportunity for support to
> assist with data recovery is smaller and somewhat random.
Hmm .... it'd probably be a good idea to force zero_damaged_pages OFF in
the autovac subprocess. That parameter is only intended for interactive
use --- as you say, autovac would be a rather nasty loose cannon if it
fired up with this parameter ON.
Are there any other things that ought to be disabled in autovac?
regards, tom lane
