Tom Lane wrote:
> If we were actually going in this direction we'd
> want to write a much better WAL-text-dump tool than we have, and then
> in principle somebody could sanitize the text output before shipping
> it off. But going through a large volume of data that way could be
> pretty impractical. Also, we (or at least I) have nearly zip experience
> with trying to debug problems by examining WAL, so it's not real clear
> to me which details might be important.
>
There's another interesting thing about moving in this direction too.
Systems that have WAL archiving setup that run into a problem could end
up being a much richer source for historical analysis of how the system
got into the bad state than is available right now. Typically those can
have longer histories available than you'll find on a primary that's
recycling segments all the time.
--
Greg Smith 2ndQuadrant US Baltimore, MD
PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support
greg@2ndQuadrant.com www.2ndQuadrant.us