RE: BUG #17375: RECOVERY TARGET TIME RESTORE IS FAILING TO START SERVER
От | B Ganesh Kishan |
---|---|
Тема | RE: BUG #17375: RECOVERY TARGET TIME RESTORE IS FAILING TO START SERVER |
Дата | |
Msg-id | SA1PR19MB50888FF75B7A2F5B769449D6B7259@SA1PR19MB5088.namprd19.prod.outlook.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: BUG #17375: RECOVERY TARGET TIME RESTORE IS FAILING TO START SERVER (Bharath Rupireddy <bharath.rupireddyforpostgres@gmail.com>) |
Список | pgsql-bugs |
Hello, Can someone please help here? Thanks and Regards, Ganesh Kishan -----Original Message----- From: Bharath Rupireddy <bharath.rupireddyforpostgres@gmail.com> Sent: 27 January 2022 19:47 To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> Cc: David G. Johnston <david.g.johnston@gmail.com>; B Ganesh Kishan <bkishan@commvault.com>; pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org;Meera Nair <mnair@commvault.com> Subject: Re: BUG #17375: RECOVERY TARGET TIME RESTORE IS FAILING TO START SERVER External email. Inspect before opening. On Fri, Jan 21, 2022 at 8:51 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > "David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@gmail.com> writes: > > On Fri, Jan 21, 2022 at 4:20 AM B Ganesh Kishan > > <bkishan@commvault.com> > > wrote: > >> The problem is that we are providing a time target that Postgres > >> does not know how to reach. This is because there are no > >> transactions in between the backups. > > > I don't quite follow the overall situation but given your > > observation and apparent acceptance of the pre-v13 behavior just > > don't specify a restore point and let WAL replay everything. > > Yeah. If I'm understanding the situation, when you specify a target > time that is later than the last transaction available from WAL, older > versions silently assumed that stopping with the last available transaction is OK. > Newer ones complain because it's not clear whether that's OK --- in > particular, there's no good way to be sure that no WAL is missing. > > On the whole I think that's a good change. I can sympathize with the > complaint that it creates additional complexity for restore scripts, > but I'm a little dubious that this is something you'd be wanting to > script anyway. This reminds me of the thread [1], where the proposal was to allow users to choose what should happen in this situation.Basically, a GUC that takes us to the old behavior i.e. not fail FATALly but emit a warning and continue. [1] https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.postgresql.org%2Fmessage-id%2Fflat%2FCALj2ACWR4iaph7AWCr5-V9dXqpf2p5B%253D3fTyvLfL8VD_E%252Bx0tA%2540mail.gmail.com&data=04%7C01%7Cbkishan%40commvault.com%7C9a2731e7ee4a4ddfa02808d9e19fb56a%7C40ed1e38a16e46229d7c45161b6969d5%7C0%7C0%7C637788898326072542%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=DuJTWKxhxWJkg%2B%2FMNRbK%2B1s9TXTojRPei1cNSDNF5oY%3D&reserved=0 Regards, Bharath Rupireddy.
В списке pgsql-bugs по дате отправления: