| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Anastasia Lubennikova <a(dot)lubennikova(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> |
| Cc: | Asim R P <apraveen(at)pivotal(dot)io>, Paul Guo <pguo(at)pivotal(dot)io>, Alexandra Wang <leiwang(at)pivotal(dot)io>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: standby recovery fails (tablespace related) (tentative patch and discussion) |
| Date: | 2020-01-10 13:43:35 |
| Message-ID: | 20200110134335.GA6829@alvherre.pgsql |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2020-Jan-09, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> I looked at this a little while and was bothered by the perl changes; it
> seems out of place to have RecursiveCopy be thinking about tablespaces,
> which is way out of its league. So I rewrote that to use a callback:
> the PostgresNode code passes a callback that's in charge to handle the
> case of a symlink. Things look much more in place with that. I didn't
> verify that all places that should use this are filled.
>
> In 0002 I found adding a new function unnecessary: we can keep backwards
> compat by checking 'ref' of the third argument. With that we don't have
> to add a new function. (POD changes pending.)
I forgot to add that something in these changes is broken (probably the
symlink handling callback) so the tests fail, but I couldn't stay away
from my daughter's birthday long enough to figure out what or how. I'm
on something else today, so if one of you can research and submit fixed
versions, that'd be great.
Thanks,
--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2020-01-10 14:08:28 | standby apply lag on inactive servers |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2020-01-10 13:41:06 | Re: our checks for read-only queries are not great |