Re: Requiring recovery.signal or standby.signal when recovering with a backup_label
Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
From: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
To: David Steele <david@pgmasters.net>
Cc: Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota.ntt@gmail.com>, pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org, zxwsbg12138@gmail.com, david.zhang@highgo.ca
Date: 2023-10-27T07:22:54Z
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 →
-
Delay recovery mode LOG after reading backup_label and/or checkpoint record
- dc5bd3889437 17.0 landed
-
Mention standby.signal in FATALs for checkpoint record missing at recovery
- 1ffdc03c21ae 17.0 landed
-
XLOG file archiving and point-in-time recovery. There are still some
- 66ec2db72840 8.0.0 cited
On Mon, Oct 16, 2023 at 02:54:35PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Sat, Oct 14, 2023 at 03:45:33PM -0400, David Steele wrote: >> On 9/28/23 19:59, Michael Paquier wrote: >>> Another idea I had was to force the creation of recovery.signal by >>> pg_basebackup even if -R is not used. All the reports we've seen with >>> people getting confused came from pg_basebackup that enforces no >>> configuration. >> >> This change makes it more obvious if configuration is missing (since you'll >> get an error), however +1 for adding this to pg_basebackup. > > Looking at the streaming APIs of pg_basebackup, it looks like this > would be a matter of using bbstreamer_inject_file() to inject an empty > file into the stream. Still something seems to be off once > compression methods are involved.. Hmm. I am not sure. Well, this > could always be done as a patch independant of this one, under a > separate discussion. There are extra arguments about whether it would > be a good idea to add a recovery.signal even when taking a backup from > a standby, and do that only in 17~. Hmm. On this specific point, it would actually be much simpler to force recovery.signal to be in the contents streamed to a BASE_BACKUP. This does not step on your proposal at [1], though, because you'd still require a .signal file for recovery as far as I understand :/ [1]: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/2daf8adc-8db7-4204-a7f2-a7e94e2bfa4b@pgmasters.net Would folks be OK to move on with the patch of this thread at the end? I am attempting a last-call kind of thing. -- Michael