On Mon, 2004-07-19 at 17:56, Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >> I had second thoughts about that and didn't do it in the committed
> >> patch, though it's certainly still open for debate.
>
> > How are we handling a crash during recovery?
>
> Retry, perhaps. It doesn't seem any different from crash-during-recovery
> in the non-archived scenario ...
>
Well, a recovery is just re-applying already written logs at super
speed. We don't need to write WAL because we already wrote it once (and
that would really confuse the timeline issue).
I think if this was an issue, the solution would be to speed up recovery
since that would benefit us more than putting recovery-squared code in.
Just start over...
Best Regards, Simon Riggs