RE: Stronger safeguard for archive recovery not to miss data

Takamichi Osumi (Fujitsu) <osumi.takamichi@fujitsu.com>

From: "osumi.takamichi@fujitsu.com" <osumi.takamichi@fujitsu.com>
To: 'Laurenz Albe' <laurenz.albe@cybertec.at>, 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: 2021-01-25T08:19:54Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Attachments

Hi


On Monday, January 25, 2021 5:13 AM Laurenz Albe <laurenz.albe@cybertec.at> wrote:
> 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 withdrawn.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.
Updated. This patch showed no failure during regression tests
and has been aligned by pgindent.

Best Regards,
	Takamichi Osumi

Commits

  1. Fix test added by commit 9de9294b0c.

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