Re: [HACKERS] Re: BUG #4796: Recovery followed by backup creates unrecoverable WAL-file

Hi,

On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 9:22 PM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>> If you delete history file and all the WAL for timeline 6, yeah, nothing
>> stops it from being reused. It will work just fine, as if it never
>> existed. If you still have the history file and WAL for the old timeline
>> 6 lying around somewhere else like an older offsite backup, it's easy
>> for the administrator to get confused, but there isn't much we can do
>> about that.
>
> ehem, "It will work fine" isn't correct, as Fujii-san observes.

Yes. In the case which I described, 6 is treated as timeline newer than 7.
At least, this is against the current premise that timeline IDs must be in
increasing sequence.

> Let's document that timeline files should not be deleted from the
> archive iff there exists a base backup made during a lower numbered
> timeline.

Agreed.

Regards,

--
Fujii Masao
NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION
NTT Open Source Software Center