From: | Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com |
Cc: | alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org, dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com, robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com, michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz, rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: standby recovery fails (tablespace related) (tentative patch and discussion) |
Date: | 2022-07-22 00:20:37 |
Message-ID: | 20220722.092037.2223544132097441027.horikyota.ntt@gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
At Thu, 21 Jul 2022 23:14:57 +1200, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote in
> On Thu, Jul 21, 2022 at 11:01 PM Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> wrote:
> > On 2022-Jul-20, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > > I see the following alternatives:
> > >
> > > 1. not backpatch this fix to 14 and older
> > > 2. use a different GUC; either allow_invalid_pages as previously
> > > suggested, or create a new one just for this purpose
> > > 3. not provide any overriding mechanism in versions 14 and older
> >
> > I've got no opinions on this. I don't like either 1 or 3, so I'm going
> > to add and backpatch a new GUC allow_recovery_tablespaces as the
> > override mechanism.
> >
> > If others disagree with this choice, please speak up.
>
> Would it help if we back-patched the allow_in_place_tablespaces stuff?
> I'm not sure how hard/destabilising that would be, but I could take a
> look tomorrow.
+1. Addiotional reason for me is it is a developer option.
regards.
--
Kyotaro Horiguchi
NTT Open Source Software Center
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Justin Pryzby | 2022-07-22 00:35:56 | Re: Expose Parallelism counters planned/execute in pg_stat_statements |
Previous Message | Nathan Bossart | 2022-07-21 23:48:32 | Re: Fwd: Unprivileged user can induce crash by using an SUSET param in PGOPTIONS |