| From: | Nitin Jadhav <nitinjadhavpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | adam8157(at)gmail(dot)com, michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz, hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] Fix minRecoveryPoint not advanced past checkpoint in CreateRestartPoint |
| Date: | 2026-06-25 13:48:01 |
| Message-ID: | CAMm1aWaTyzzjSYX+iPU65JTcNpCsRJKnFJdsdv7-Ydv2Q=qVhg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi Michael, Kyotaro,
Thanks for the clarifications and feedback.
I spent some time looking at how core tools like pg_rewind use this
value. After going through the code paths and the existing pg_rewind
tests, I understand the concern that minRecoveryPoint should primarily
be treated as a consistency-floor value. I also see that pg_rewind
currently depends on minRecoveryPoint in some standby-related
decisions, but I agree that this does not necessarily mean it should
be treated as a general indicator of how far recovery has progressed.
Given that, I’m okay to treat the current behavior as expected for now
and avoid pushing further on this until we have Adam’s view on whether
he still wants to pursue the change with stronger justification and
tests, or whether he prefers to drop or rework it based on this
semantic direction.
Best Regards,
Nitin Jadhav
Azure Database for PostgreSQL
Microsoft
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tomas Vondra | 2026-06-25 13:49:00 | Re: Adding basic NUMA awareness |
| Previous Message | Baji Shaik | 2026-06-25 13:47:27 | Re: uuidv7 improperly accepts dates before 1970-01-01 |