| From: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net>, "osumi(dot)takamichi(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <osumi(dot)takamichi(at)fujitsu(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at>, 'Kyotaro Horiguchi' <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Stronger safeguard for archive recovery not to miss data |
| Date: | 2021-03-26 01:23:38 |
| Message-ID: | b2a6c11b-ddc1-ca20-75f3-45500c2111d1@oss.nttdata.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2021/03/25 23:21, David Steele wrote:
> On 1/25/21 3:55 AM, Laurenz Albe wrote:
>> On Mon, 2021-01-25 at 08:19 +0000, osumi(dot)takamichi(at)fujitsu(dot)com wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>
>> Looks good to me.
>> I'll set it to "ready for committer" again.
>
> Fujii, does the new patch in [1] address your concerns?
No. I'm still not sure if this patch is good idea... I understand
why this safeguard is necessary. OTOH I'm afraid it increases
a bit the risk that users get unstartable database, i.e., lose whole database.
But maybe I'm concerned about rare case and my opinion is minority one.
So I'd like to hear more opinions about this patch.
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
Advanced Computing Technology Center
Research and Development Headquarters
NTT DATA CORPORATION
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Fujii Masao | 2021-03-26 01:32:23 | Re: wal stats questions |
| Previous Message | Kyotaro Horiguchi | 2021-03-26 01:08:28 | Re: wal stats questions |