On 7/25/18 11:33 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> David Steele <david@pgmasters.net> writes:
>> On 7/25/18 11:09 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
>>> The problem is that that'll just hide the issue for a bit longer, while
>>> continuing (due to the O_CREAT we'll not PANIC anymore). Which can lead
>>> to a lot of followup issues, like checkpoints removing old WAL that'd
>>> have been useful for data recovery.
>
>> So if a panic is the best thing to do, it might still be good to write
>> out a copy of pg_control to another file and let the user know that it's
>> there. More information seems better than less to me.
>
> I'm still dubious that this is fixing any real-world problem that is
> more pressing than the problems it would create. If you're asked to
> resuscitate a dead cluster, do you trust pg_control.bak if you find
> it? Maybe it's horribly out of date (consider likelihood that someone
> removed pg_control more than once, having got away with that the first
> time). If there's both that and pg_control, which do you trust?
It would need to be a manual operation. I don't think automating it
would be a good idea for the reasons that Andres has enumerated.
Perhaps making pg_resetwal a bit smarter in these scenarios would be the
way to go. It's already the tool of last resort so this kind of
manipulation might be a better fit there.
Regards,
--
-David
david@pgmasters.net
