Re: standby recovery fails (tablespace related) (tentative patch and discussion)

I wrote:
> Looks like conchuela is still intermittently unhappy.

BTW, quite aside from stability, is it really necessary for this test to
be so freakin' slow? florican for instance reports

[12:43:38] t/025_stuck_on_old_timeline.pl ....... ok 49010 ms ( 0.00 usr 0.00 sys + 3.64 cusr 2.49 csys = 6.13 CPU)
[12:44:12] t/026_overwrite_contrecord.pl ........ ok 34751 ms ( 0.01 usr 0.00 sys + 3.14 cusr 1.76 csys = 4.91 CPU)
[12:49:00] t/027_stream_regress.pl .............. ok 287278 ms ( 0.00 usr 0.00 sys + 9.66 cusr 6.95 csys = 16.60 CPU)
[12:50:04] t/028_pitr_timelines.pl .............. ok 64543 ms ( 0.00 usr 0.00 sys + 3.59 cusr 3.20 csys = 6.78 CPU)
[12:50:17] t/029_stats_restart.pl ............... ok 12505 ms ( 0.02 usr 0.00 sys + 3.16 cusr 1.40 csys = 4.57 CPU)
[12:50:51] t/030_stats_cleanup_replica.pl ....... ok 33933 ms ( 0.01 usr 0.01 sys + 3.55 cusr 2.46 csys = 6.03 CPU)
[12:51:25] t/031_recovery_conflict.pl ........... ok 34249 ms ( 0.00 usr 0.00 sys + 3.37 cusr 2.20 csys = 5.57 CPU)
[12:52:09] t/032_relfilenode_reuse.pl ........... ok 44274 ms ( 0.01 usr 0.00 sys + 3.21 cusr 2.05 csys = 5.27 CPU)
[12:54:07] t/033_replay_tsp_drops.pl ............ ok 117840 ms ( 0.01 usr 0.00 sys + 8.72 cusr 5.41 csys = 14.14 CPU)

027 is so bloated because it runs the core regression tests YA time,
which I'm not very happy about either; but that's no excuse for
every new test to contribute an additional couple of minutes.

regards, tom lane