| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Roberto Mello <roberto(dot)mello(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| 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: | 2023-10-31 00:42:18 |
| Message-ID: | ZUBNauUNbeq5xTtf@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Oct 30, 2023 at 10:32:28AM -0600, Roberto Mello wrote:
> I realize the original use of "touch" is a valid shortcut for what I
> suggest above, however that will be less clear for the not-so-un*x-inclined
> users of Postgres, while for some it'll be downright confusing, IMHO. It
> also provides the advantage of being crystal clear on what needs to be done
> to fix the problem.
Indeed, "touch" may be better in this path if we'd throw an ERROR to
enforce a given policy, and that's more consistent with the rest of
the area.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Ajin Cherian | 2023-10-31 00:51:21 | Re: Synchronizing slots from primary to standby |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2023-10-31 00:40:08 | Re: Requiring recovery.signal or standby.signal when recovering with a backup_label |