| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at> |
| Cc: | David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net>, Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, zxwsbg12138(at)gmail(dot)com, david(dot)zhang(at)highgo(dot)ca |
| Subject: | Re: Requiring recovery.signal or standby.signal when recovering with a backup_label |
| Date: | 2023-10-16 23:21:39 |
| Message-ID: | ZS3Fg16lGdK1bCYW@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Oct 16, 2023 at 05:48:43PM +0200, Laurenz Albe wrote:
> I don't have strong feelings either way. If you have backup_label
> but no signal file, starting PostgreSQL may succeed (if the WAL
> with the checkpoint happens to be in pg_wal) or it may fail with
> an error message. There is no danger of causing damage unless you
> remove backup_label, right?
A bit more happens currently if you have a backup_label with no signal
files, unfortunately, because this causes some startup states to not
be initialized. See around here:
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/Y/Q/17rpYS7YGbIt(at)paquier(dot)xyz
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/Y/v0c+3W89NBT/if(at)paquier(dot)xyz
> I cannot think of a use case where you use such a configuration on
> purpose, and the current error message is more crypric than a plain
> "you must have a signal file to start from a backup", so perhaps
> your patch is a good idea.
I hope so.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2023-10-16 23:25:29 | Re: Add support for AT LOCAL |
| Previous Message | Thomas Munro | 2023-10-16 22:45:21 | Re: odd buildfarm failure - "pg_ctl: control file appears to be corrupt" |