| From: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, 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: | 2022-07-21 11:14:57 |
| Message-ID: | CA+hUKGLBdbD9WCLr6YjdbrsRWo0SWdMoV96v6WEJAQZuKKWMjg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Jul 21, 2022 at 11:01 PM Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> wrote:
> On 2022-Jul-20, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > I see the following alternatives:
> >
> > 1. not backpatch this fix to 14 and older
> > 2. use a different GUC; either allow_invalid_pages as previously
> > suggested, or create a new one just for this purpose
> > 3. not provide any overriding mechanism in versions 14 and older
>
> I've got no opinions on this. I don't like either 1 or 3, so I'm going
> to add and backpatch a new GUC allow_recovery_tablespaces as the
> override mechanism.
>
> If others disagree with this choice, please speak up.
Would it help if we back-patched the allow_in_place_tablespaces stuff?
I'm not sure how hard/destabilising that would be, but I could take a
look tomorrow.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Martin Kalcher | 2022-07-21 11:15:43 | Re: [PATCH] Introduce array_shuffle() and array_sample() |
| Previous Message | Thomas Munro | 2022-07-21 11:11:26 | Re: standby recovery fails (tablespace related) (tentative patch and discussion) |