>> You may find that if you check this case again that the
>"usually no data
>> corruption" is actually "usually lost transactions but no
>corruption".
>
>That's a good point, but it seems difficult to be sure of the last
>reportedly-committed transaction in a powerfail situation. Maybe if
>you drive the test from a client on another machine?
FYI, that's what I did. Test client ran across the network to the
server, so it could output on the console which transaction was last
reported commityted.
In a couple of cases, the server came up with a transaction the client
had *not* reported as committed. But I think that can be explained by
the commit message not reaching the client over the network before power
went out.
//Magnus