Re: [Patch] pg_rewind: options to use restore_command from recovery.conf or command line

On 2020-03-02 07:53, Michael Paquier wrote:

>
>> + * For fixed-size files, the caller may pass the expected size as an
>> + * additional crosscheck on successful recovery. If the file size is
>> not
>> + * known, set expectedSize = 0.
>> + */
>> +int
>> +RestoreArchivedWALFile(const char *path, const char *xlogfname,
>> + off_t expectedSize, const char *restoreCommand)
>
> Actually, expectedSize is IMO a bad idea, because any caller of this
> routine passing down zero could be trapped with an incorrect file
> size. So let's remove the behavior where it is possible to bypass
> this sanity check. We don't need it in pg_rewind either.
>

OK, sounds reasonable, but just to be clear. I will remove only a
possibility to bypass this sanity check (with 0), but leave expectedSize
argument intact. We still need it, since pg_rewind takes WalSegSz from
ControlFile and should pass it further, am I right?

>
>> + /* Remove trailing newline */
>> + if (strchr(cmd_output, '\n') != NULL)
>> + *strchr(cmd_output, '\n') = '\0';
>
> It seems to me that what you are looking here is to use
> pg_strip_crlf(). Thinking harder, we have pipe_read_line() in
> src/common/exec.c which does the exact same job..
>

pg_strip_crlf fits well, but would you mind if I also make
pipe_read_line external in this patch?

>
>> - /*
>> - * construct the command to be executed
>> - */
>
> Perhaps you meant "build" here.
>

Actually, the verb 'construct' is used historically applied to
archive/restore commands (see also xlogarchive.c and pgarch.c), but it
should be 'build' in (fe_)archive.c, since we have BuildRestoreCommand
there now.

All other remarks look clear for me, so I fix them in the next patch
version, thanks.

Regards
--
Alexey Kondratov

Postgres Professional https://www.postgrespro.com
The Russian Postgres Company