X-Original-To: pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B074511F8CE5 for ; Thu, 20 Apr 2006 20:29:57 -0300 (ADT) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Score: 0.122 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.122 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.122] Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qtXUH6c9V7ar for ; Thu, 20 Apr 2006 20:29:51 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [66.207.139.130]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3BCD811F8CDE for ; Thu, 20 Apr 2006 20:29:53 -0300 (ADT) Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k3KNTn8X001204; Thu, 20 Apr 2006 19:29:49 -0400 (EDT) To: Brendan Duddridge cc: Jeff Frost , PostgreSQL Performance Subject: Re: Recovery will take 10 hours In-reply-to: References: <85A15B2E-F59C-4FEF-82D4-61F48ABDCDE5@clickspace.com> Comments: In-reply-to Brendan Duddridge message dated "Thu, 20 Apr 2006 17:20:07 -0600" Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2006 19:29:49 -0400 Message-ID: <1203.1145575789@sss.pgh.pa.us> From: Tom Lane X-Archive-Number: 200604/483 X-Sequence-Number: 18567 Brendan Duddridge writes: > Oops... forgot to mention that both files that postgres said were > missing are in fact there: Please place the blame where it should fall: it's your archive restore command that's telling postgres that. > There didn't seem to be any issues with the NFS mount. Perhaps it > briefly disconnected and came back right away. Unstable NFS mounts are Really Bad News. You shouldn't be expecting to run a stable database atop such a thing. If it's not the database but only the WAL archive that's NFS'd, it might be possible to live with it, but you'll need to put some defenses into your archive restore script to cope with such events. As far as restarting goes: I think you can restart from here without first redoing your base-backup restore, but as previously noted it'll still read through the same WAL files it looked at before. You won't save much except the time to redo the base restore. regards, tom lane