Re: Failing assertion while taking a restartpoint during crash recovery

On Sat, Aug 15, 2026 at 9:28 PM Imran Zaheer <imran(dot)zhir(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> I agree that tracking whether StartupSUBTRANS() has actually been
> called is more direct and robust. I don't have any strong objection to
> your approach; your fix looks reasonable to me.

Thanks for the review!

I've applied the cosmetic changes to the patch and created patches
for the older branches.

> My initial concern was more about having too many recovery state
> management variables at this point, i.e., ArchiveRecoveryRequested,
> InArchiveRecovery, EnableHotStandby, StandbyMode,
> StandbyModeRequested, etc. I just wanted to keep the context close to
> the existing states and did not want to create a new state for this
> specific bug.

I agree that adding such new recovery state variables basically would
not be a good idea. But, I don't think the flag introduced by this patch
falls into that category. It simply tracks whether pg_subtrans has been
started during recovery, so I don't have much concern about adding it.

Regards,

--
Fujii Masao