Horton

Re: Stronger safeguard for archive recovery not to miss data

Laurenz Albe <laurenz.albe@cybertec.at>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Laurenz Albe <laurenz.albe@cybertec.at>
To: "osumi.takamichi@fujitsu.com" <osumi.takamichi@fujitsu.com>, Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com>, 'Kyotaro Horiguchi' <horikyota.ntt@gmail.com>
Cc: "pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org" <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Date: 2021-01-24T20:12:47Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
On Thu, 2021-01-21 at 15:30 +0100, I wrote:
> On Thu, 2021-01-21 at 13:09 +0000, osumi.takamichi@fujitsu.com wrote:
> 
> > > My vote is that we should not have a GUC for such an unlikely event, and that
> > > stopping recovery is good enough.
> > OK. IIUC, my current patch for this fix doesn't need to be changed or withdrawn.
> > Thank you for your explanation.
> 
> Well, that's just my opinion.
> 
> Fujii Masao seemed to disagree with the patch, and his voice carries weight.

I think you should pst another patch where the second, now superfluous,
error message is removed.

Yours,
Laurenz Albe

Commits

  1. Fix test added by commit 9de9294b0c.

  2. Stop archive recovery if WAL generated with wal_level=minimal is found.