Horton

Re: [Patch] pg_rewind: options to use restore_command from recovery.conf or command line

Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>

View thread
From: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
To: Kuntal Ghosh <kuntalghosh.2007@gmail.com>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>, Alexey Kondratov <a.kondratov@postgrespro.ru>, Alexander Korotkov <a.korotkov@postgrespro.ru>, Liudmila Mantrova <l.mantrova@postgrespro.ru>, Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>, Andrey Borodin <x4mmm@yandex-team.ru>, David Steele <david@pgmasters.net>, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>, Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6@gmail.com>, vladimirlesk@yandex-team.ru, dsarafan@yandex-team.ru
Date: 2020-03-10T04:28:42Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Commits

Same data as JSON: GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources. API reference →

  1. Move frontend-side archive APIs from src/common/ to src/fe_utils/

  2. Add -c/--restore-target-wal to pg_rewind

  3. Move routine definitions of xlogarchive.c to a new header file

  4. Move routine building restore_command to src/common/

  5. Integrate recovery.conf into postgresql.conf

Attachments

On Mon, Mar 09, 2020 at 03:38:29PM +0530, Kuntal Ghosh wrote:
> That's a good suggestion. But, it's unlikely that a caller would pass
> something longer than MAXPGPATH and we indeed use that value a lot in
> the code. IMHO, it looks okay to me to have that assumption here as
> well.

Well, a more serious problem would be to allocate something smaller
than MAXPGPATH.  This reminds me a bit of 09ec55b9 where we did not
correctly design from the start the base64 encode and decode routines
for SCRAM, so I'd rather design this one correctly from the start as
per the attached.  Alexey, Alexander, what do you think?
--
Michael