Re: BUG #19032: In restore_command %f parameter does not support WAL partial files.

I used pg_basebackup for full backups. pg_receivewal for collecting latest
WALs from Primary Server.
The scenario I described was for full database restoration in a situation
of complete Primary database server unrecoverable crash.
So, it is not the situation when orignial Primary may return back.
I did not use archive_command, because it seemed to be obsolete when
pg_receivewal is is used.

In my procedures there is nothing different from standard usage described
in Postgres manual.

"pg_receivewal creates files with ".partial" extensions that are
semantically different from what the core system ".partial" files" - does
it mean that files are useless for database restoring from backup?

From pg_receivewal documentation:
"pg_receivewal streams the write-ahead log in real time as it's being
generated on the server, and does not wait for segments to complete like
archive_command
<https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/runtime-config-wal.html#GUC-ARCHIVE-COMMAND>
and archive_library
<https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/runtime-config-wal.html#GUC-ARCHIVE-LIBRARY>
do. For this reason, it is not necessary to set archive_timeout
<https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/runtime-config-wal.html#GUC-ARCHIVE-TIMEOUT>
when using pg_receivewal." - What is it for? Especially with this
"archive_timeout" and " does not wait for segments to complete" remarks.

"When using pg_receivewal instead of archive_command
<https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/runtime-config-wal.html#GUC-ARCHIVE-COMMAND>
or archive_library
<https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/runtime-config-wal.html#GUC-ARCHIVE-LIBRARY>
as the main WAL backup method, it is strongly recommended to use
replication slots" and "The archive_command
<https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/runtime-config-wal.html#GUC-ARCHIVE-COMMAND>
or archive_library
<https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/runtime-config-wal.html#GUC-ARCHIVE-LIBRARY>
is only invoked for *completed* WAL segments."
In a case of server crash usable WAL part file is not accessible (putting
pg_wal directory on i.e. NFS Server is not a good idea in my opinion).

It seems that advantage of Postgres database with almost continuous WAL
backup compared to some commercial databases when equivalent to
archive_timeout must be set to i.e. 10 minutes and end up with a lot of
"empty" WALs i.e. during weekends is not true.

It is a pity, because Postgres has all tools to have this advantage, but
they must be properly modified. Or there is something I do not understand
and this functionality is somehow available.

Wojciech S.

śr., 27 sie 2025 o 02:48 David G. Johnston <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>
napisał(a):

> On Tue, Aug 26, 2025 at 5:10 PM PG Bug reporting form <
> noreply(at)postgresql(dot)org> wrote:
>
>> The following bug has been logged on the website:
>>
>> Bug reference: 19032
>> Logged by: Wojciech Szenajch
>> Email address: wszenajch(at)gmail(dot)com
>> PostgreSQL version: 17.6
>> Operating system: Ubuntu 24.04.03 LTS
>> Description:
>>
>> Using restore_command = 'cp /tmp/receivewal/%f %p' does not use WAL
>> partial
>> file during backup restore process.
>>
>
> While this seems un-documented in the user-facing documentation the source
> code makes it clear this is intended behavior. If your
> point-in-time-recovery flow requires the use of these files you will need
> to manually manipulate them.
>
>
> https://github.com/postgres/postgres/blob/85b380162cd6c66752d1dd020a2d9700da0903c9/src/backend/access/transam/xlog.c#L5347
>
> (link to article about a custom archiving process relying on pg_receivewal)
>
> It seems unfortunate that the pg_receivewal creates files with ".partial"
> extensions that are semantically different from what the core system
> ".partial" files are. But if your archive process is custom (i.e., uses
> something other than archive_command) it seems reasonable that any
> restore_command you need to create would also be something custom. Going
> by the documentation for only half of the process is going to lead to these
> kinds of inconsistent results.
>
> David J.
>
>