Re: zero_damaged_pages doesn't work

  On 9/27/2010 4:53 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> The reason it tells you that data will be destroyed is that that could
> very well happen.  If the system decides to put new data into what will
> appear to it to be an empty page, then the damaged data on disk will be
> overwritten, and then there's no hope of recovering anything.
>
> Like Jeff said, this is not a recovery tool.  It's certainly not meant
> to be something that you keep turned on for any length of time, and so
> the possibility of repeat messages is really not a design consideration
> at all.

No argument with any of this, although I'm not the intended audience for
these warnings -- I know what I'm doing ;)

I'm not sure though if you're disagreeing with my
suggestion that the documentation be improved/corrected though.
Is that the case ? (if so then I will argue)