Neil Conway <neilc@samurai.com> writes:
> Having better tools is hardly a bad thing, and I don't think having
> better tools would require making an "admission" about the reliability
> of our software. I was just saying that there's room for improvement:
> for instance, tools like pg_filedump and pgfsck could be a lot more
> polished and feature-complete, and the whole process of recovering from
> data corruption could be better documented.
The point I was trying to make is that recovery is never a cookbook
process --- it's never twice the same problem. (If it were, we could
and should be doing something about the underlying problem.) This makes
it difficult to provide either polished tools or polished documentation.
regards, tom lane
