| From: | Mats Kindahl <mats(dot)kindahl(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>, japinli(at)hotmail(dot)com |
| Cc: | suryapoondla4(at)gmail(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: pg_rewind does not rewind diverging timelines |
| Date: | 2026-08-12 05:05:07 |
| Message-ID: | 8cb012f7-1058-41ee-a727-90f3ecbecb58@gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 6/1/26 08:30, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
> Sorry, I only just noticed this thread.
>
> I may be missing something, but UUID feels somewhat heavyweight to me
> for this problem.
>
> I wonder whether strengthening the history-based matching would be
> sufficient instead. If timelines with the same TLI but different
> histories can be treated as distinct and pg_rewind continues walking
> the history chain until it finds a common ancestor, that seems like a
> fairly natural fit with the existing timeline model.
Unfortunately, I do not think that will work. For the normally
problematic case, the two competing TLIs will have the same history. I
added extra tests to support a divergence further back, but I find this
a rare case.
> UUIDs would certainly make identification straightforward, although
> they would also introduce longer identifiers that are a bit less
> convenient for humans to work with. My initial thought is that it may
> be worth exploring how far we can get with the existing history
> information before introducing a new identifier.
Well, although they are written to the file, the normal TLI is just an
extra defense, not a replacement for the TLI.
Best wishes,
Mats Kindahl
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | jian he | 2026-08-12 05:09:08 | Re: Row pattern recognition |
| Previous Message | Chao Li | 2026-08-12 04:53:24 | Re: Fix small psql slash option leaks |