| From: | Alena Vinter <dlaaren8(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Startup PANIC on standby promotion due to zero-filled WAL segment |
| Date: | 2025-12-25 08:47:05 |
| Message-ID: | CAGWv16+9r8roFdReY1qV6rcFDi9UdzmjQc+GfKbdvHZMomCqCg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
I like the idea of preventing promotion to avoid such failures -- it sounds
reasonable.
However, we still have the problem: if the standby is stopped with
non-replicated TLI 2, it will fail to start:
"FATAL: according to history file, WAL location Y belongs to timeline X,
but previous recovered WAL file came from timeline X+1".
This happens even if no promotion is attempted — just a plain restart of
the standby. So the issue isn’t only about when to allow promotion.
Regarding my proposed solution: could you clarify why it isn’t correct? I’d
appreciate more detail so I can address your concerns.
---
Alena Vinter
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| recovery_tli_switch_test_without_standby_promotion_replica.log | text/x-log | 3.2 KB |
| recovery_tli_switch_test_without_standby_promotion.pl | application/x-perl | 1.1 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Konstantin Knizhnik | 2025-12-25 08:56:50 | Re: index prefetching |
| Previous Message | Dilip Kumar | 2025-12-25 07:40:34 | Re: Proposal: Conflict log history table for Logical Replication |