Re: [BUG] pg_basebackup from disconnected standby fails

From: Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>
Cc: PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [BUG] pg_basebackup from disconnected standby fails
Date: 2016-06-14 12:24:58
Message-ID: CAB7nPqQkJv-3Cbi=yDytoC9eWPfmjrj7-DLOn9C4YsB1twAKiw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 8:31 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
<horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> wrote:
>> +# Take a second backup of the standby while the master is offline.
>> +$node_master->stop;
>> +$node_standby_1->backup('my_backup_2');
>> +$node_master->start;
>
> I'm not sure that adding the test case for a particular bug like
> this is appropriate. But it would be acceptable because it
> doesn't take long time and it is separate from standard checks.

We already take a backup from a standby when master is connected, it
should not cost much in terms of time.

> It seems to me that we could more agressively advance the
> minRecoveryPoint (but must not let it go too far..), but it is
> right for it to aim a bit smaller than the ideal location.

It may be risky to propose such a change for a backpatch. Anyway, in
any case there is no guarantee that when using the low-level backup
routines pg_start/stop_backup with a custom backup method the minimum
recovery point will be correct.. pg_basebackup does that a bit more
carefully if I recall correctly (too lazy to look at the code now :)).
--
Michael

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2016-06-14 12:44:44 Re: Reviewing freeze map code
Previous Message ''bruce@momjian.us' *EXTERN*' 2016-06-14 12:20:12 Re: Prepared statements and generic plans