Re: Stronger safeguard for archive recovery not to miss data

On 4/4/21 11:34 PM, Fujii Masao wrote:
>
> On 2021/04/04 11:58, osumi(dot)takamichi(at)fujitsu(dot)com wrote:
>>> IMO it's better to comment why this server restart is necessary.
>>> As far as I understand correctly, this is necessary to ensure the WAL
>>> file
>>> containing the record about the change of wal_level (to minimal) is
>>> archived,
>>> so that the subsequent archive recovery will be able to replay it.
>> OK, added some comments. Further, I felt the way I wrote this part was
>> not good at all and self-evident
>> and developers who read this test would feel uneasy about that point.
>> So, a little bit fixed that test so that we can get clearer conviction
>> for wal archive.
>
> LGTM. Thanks for updating the patch!
>
> Attached is the updated version of the patch. I applied the following
> changes.
> Could you review this version? Barring any objection, I'm thinking to
> commit this.

I'm good with this patch as is. I would rather not bike shed the hint
too much as time is short to get this patch in.

Regards,
--
-David
david(at)pgmasters(dot)net