Sorry, it seems that I posted at the wrong position..
At Thu, 28 Sep 2023 12:58:51 +0900 (JST), Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota.ntt@gmail.com> wrote in
> At Fri, 10 Mar 2023 15:59:04 +0900, Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote in
> > My apologies for the long message, but this deserves some attention,
> > IMHO.
> >
> > So, any thoughts?
>
> Sorry for being late. However, I agree with David's concern regarding
> the unnecessary inconvenience it introduces. I'd like to maintain the
> functionality.
>
> While I agree that InArchiveRecovery should be activated only if
> ArchiveReArchiveRecoveryRequested is true, I oppose to the notion that
> the mere presence of backup_label should be interpreted as a request
> for archive recovery (even if it is implied in a comment in
> InitWalRecovery()). Instead, I propose that we separate backup_label
> and archive recovery, in other words, we should not turn on
> InArchiveRecovery if !ArchiveRecoveryRequested, regardless of the
> presence of backup_label. We can know the minimum required recovery
> LSN by the XLOG_BACKUP_END record.
>
> The attached is a quick mock-up, but providing an approximation of my
> thoughts. (For example, end_of_backup_reached could potentially be
> extended to the ArchiveRecoveryRequested case and we could simplify
> the condition..)
regards
--
Kyotaro Horiguchi
NTT Open Source Software Center