Re: standby recovery fails (tablespace related) (tentative patch and discussion)

From: Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: standby recovery fails (tablespace related) (tentative patch and discussion)
Date: 2022-03-28 01:34:44
Message-ID: CA+hUKGK9NaBvfmvCcangrqR2EZj0g0EBxCiaKiyv2zWuBfSceg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, Mar 28, 2022 at 2:01 PM Kyotaro Horiguchi
<horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> At Fri, 25 Mar 2022 13:26:05 +0100, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> wrote in
> > Pushed this, backpatching to 14 and 13. It would have been good to
> > backpatch further, but there's an (textually trivial) merge conflict
> > related to commit e6d8069522c8. Because that commit conceptually
> > touches the same area that this bugfix is about, I'm not sure that
> > backpatching further without a lot more thought is wise -- particularly
> > so when there's no way to automate the test in branches older than
> > master.

Just a thought: we could consider back-patching
allow_in_place_tablespaces, after a little while, if we're happy with
how that is working out, if it'd be useful for verifying bug fixes in
back branches. It's non-end-user-facing testing infrastructure.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message kuroda.hayato@fujitsu.com 2022-03-28 01:55:40 RE: Logical replication timeout problem
Previous Message Andrew Dunstan 2022-03-28 01:32:02 Re: SQL/JSON: functions