Re: Data-only pg_rewind, take 2

From: Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Chris Travers <chris(dot)travers(at)adjust(dot)com>
Cc: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Data-only pg_rewind, take 2
Date: 2019-07-08 07:04:05
Message-ID: CA+hUKGKzZoZkg0EJiEdT3CewTZqgYO=jVWGPE4Y3rrTZXM8HfA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, Mar 18, 2019 at 8:46 PM Chris Travers <chris(dot)travers(at)adjust(dot)com> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 18, 2019 at 4:09 AM Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote:
>> On Sun, Mar 17, 2019 at 09:00:57PM +0800, Chris Travers wrote:
>> > I also added test cases and some docs. I don't know if the docs are
>> > sufficient. Feedback is appreciated.
>>
>> To be honest, I don't think that this approach is a good idea per the
>> same reasons as mentioned the last time, as this can cause pg_rewind
>> to break if any newly-added folder in the data directory has
>> non-replaceable data which is needed at the beginning of recovery and
>> cannot be automatically rebuilt. So that's one extra maintenance
>> burden to worry about.
>
> Actually I think this is safe. Let me go through the cases not handled in the current behavior at all:

Hi Chris,

Could you please post a rebase? This has fairly thoroughly bitrotted.
The Commitfest is here, so now would be an excellent time for people
to be able to apply and test the patch.

Thanks,

--
Thomas Munro
https://enterprisedb.com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Surafel Temesgen 2019-07-08 07:08:36 Re: FETCH FIRST clause PERCENT option
Previous Message Amit Langote 2019-07-08 06:58:12 Re: Broken defenses against dropping a partitioning column