| From: | "osumi(dot)takamichi(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <osumi(dot)takamichi(at)fujitsu(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | 'Laurenz Albe' <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at>, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com>, 'Kyotaro Horiguchi' <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | RE: Stronger safeguard for archive recovery not to miss data |
| Date: | 2021-01-25 08:19:54 |
| Message-ID: | OSBPR01MB48887EFFCA39FA9B1DBAFB0FEDBD0@OSBPR01MB4888.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi
On Monday, January 25, 2021 5:13 AM Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at> wrote:
> On Thu, 2021-01-21 at 15:30 +0100, I wrote:
> > On Thu, 2021-01-21 at 13:09 +0000, osumi(dot)takamichi(at)fujitsu(dot)com wrote:
> >
> > > > My vote is that we should not have a GUC for such an unlikely
> > > > event, and that stopping recovery is good enough.
> > > OK. IIUC, my current patch for this fix doesn't need to be changed or
> withdrawn.
> > > Thank you for your explanation.
> >
> > Well, that's just my opinion.
> >
> > Fujii Masao seemed to disagree with the patch, and his voice carries weight.
>
> I think you should pst another patch where the second, now superfluous, error
> message is removed.
Updated. This patch showed no failure during regression tests
and has been aligned by pgindent.
Best Regards,
Takamichi Osumi
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| stronger_safeguard_for_archive_recovery_v04.patch | application/octet-stream | 7.6 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | k.jamison@fujitsu.com | 2021-01-25 08:22:33 | RE: libpq debug log |
| Previous Message | Masahiko Sawada | 2021-01-25 08:19:43 | Re: New IndexAM API controlling index vacuum strategies |