Re: Remove Deprecated Exclusive Backup Mode

From: Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at>
Cc: David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Adrien NAYRAT <adrien(dot)nayrat(at)anayrat(dot)info>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Remove Deprecated Exclusive Backup Mode
Date: 2019-02-28 14:44:06
Message-ID: CAHGQGwHgF15OUB-gN+xtHRTp2=8r0Z+ZwARqE51-Ts3ywXcUuA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 4:35 PM Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at> wrote:
>
> Fujii Masao wrote:
> > So, let me clarify the situations;
> >
> > (3) If backup_label.pending exists but recovery.signal doesn't, the server
> > ignores (or removes) backup_label.pending and do the recovery
> > starting the pg_control's REDO location. This case can happen if
> > the server crashes while an exclusive backup is in progress.
> > So crash-in-the-middle-of-backup doesn't prevent the recovery from
> > starting in this idea
>
> That's where I see the problem with your idea.
>
> It is fairly easy for someone to restore a backup and then just start
> the server without first creating "recovery.signal", and that would
> lead to data corruption.

Isn't this case problematic even when a backup was taken by pg_basebackup?
Because of lack of recovery.signal, no archived WAL files are replayed and
the database may not reach to the latest point.

Regards,

--
Fujii Masao

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Joe Conway 2019-02-28 14:45:22 Re: Row Level Security − leakproof-ness and performance implications
Previous Message Alexander Kuzmenkov 2019-02-28 14:27:51 Re: Optimze usage of immutable functions as relation