To: Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: Mark Kirkwood <markir@coretech.co.nz>, pgsql-admin@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Point in Time Recovery 
In-reply-to: <1090540113.3057.17.camel@localhost.localdomain> 
References: <200407132242.i6DMgg612564@candle.pha.pa.us>
	<1089760416.17493.3327.camel@stromboli>
	<40F49AE9.2060805@familyhealth.com.au>
	<1089789682.17493.3890.camel@stromboli>
	<40FF1D88.30404@coretech.co.nz> <12173.1090527593@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<1090540113.3057.17.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Comments: In-reply-to Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>
	message dated "Fri, 23 Jul 2004 00:48:34 +0100"
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2004 22:01:24 -0400
Message-ID: <14500.1090548084@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>

Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> On Thu, 2004-07-22 at 21:19, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Yeah, I think you are right: presence of recovery.conf should force a
>> WAL scan even if pg_control claims it's shut down.  Fix committed.

> This *should* be possible but I haven't tested it.

I did.

It's really not risky.  The fact that the code doesn't look beyond the
checkpoint record when things seem to be kosher is just a speed
optimization (and probably a rather pointless one...)  We have got to be
able to detect the end of WAL in any case, so we'd just find there are
no more records and stop.

			regards, tom lane