Re: standby recovery fails (tablespace related) (tentative patch and discussion)
| От | Paul Guo |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: standby recovery fails (tablespace related) (tentative patch and discussion) |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CAEET0ZEwRQco8tFodgJfZXPoxjJXMn7Fs7-=7mFg2CsRqFNizg@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: standby recovery fails (tablespace related) (tentative patch anddiscussion) (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>) |
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Sep 3, 2019 at 11:58 PM Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
On 2019-Aug-22, Anastasia Lubennikova wrote:
> 22.08.2019 16:13, Paul Guo wrote:
> > Thanks. I updated the patch to v5. It passes install-check testing and
> > recovery testing.
> Hi,
> Thank you for working on this fix.
> The overall design of the latest version looks good to me.
> But during the review, I found a bug in the current implementation.
> New behavior must apply to crash-recovery only, now it applies to
> archiveRecovery too.
Hello
Paul, Kyotaro, are you working on updating this bugfix? FWIW the latest
patch submitted by Paul is still current and CFbot says it passes its
own test, but from Anastasia's email it still needs a bit of work.
Also: it would be good to have this new bogus scenario described by
Anastasia covered by a new TAP test. Anastasia, can we enlist you to
write that? Maybe Kyotaro?
Thanks Anastasia and Alvaro for comment and suggestion. Sorry I've been busy
working on some non-PG stuffs recently. I've never worked on archive recovery,
so I expect a bit more time after I'm free (hopefully several days later) to take a look.
Of course Kyotaro, Anastasia or anyone feel free to address the concern before that.
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: