Re: WAL replay failure after file truncation(?)

> Plan B is for WAL replay to always be willing to extend the file to
> whatever record number is mentioned in the log, even though this
> may require inventing the contents of empty pages; we trust that their
> contents won't matter because they'll be truncated again later in the
> replay sequence.  This seems pretty messy though, especially for
> indexes.  The major objection to it is that it gives up error detection
> in real filesystem-corruption cases: we'll just silently build an
> invalid index and then try to run with it.  (Still, that might be better
> than refusing to start; at least you can REINDEX afterwards.)

You could at least log some sort of warning during the PITR process. 
Anyone running a PITR not paying attention to their logs is in trouble 
anyway...

Chris