| From: | Nitin Jadhav <nitinjadhavpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Adam Lee <adam8157(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
| Cc: | Heikki Linnakangas <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: | 2026-06-09 12:38:36 |
| Message-ID: | CAMm1aWbCX_Tso1s1oBh6g3=sdvDdZX68gMAN8KRv9Z-1ykiu8w@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi Adam, Michael,
I went through the discussion and wanted to share my thoughts.
I agree with Michael's point that semantically, minRecoveryPoint
represents the minimum LSN needed for on-disk page consistency, and
from that strict perspective, the current behavior is technically
correct. However, I also acknowledge Adam's concern about the
practical impact on tooling and automation that relies on
pg_controldata to accurately reflect recovery progress.
Given that the current behavior creates inconsistency across
recovery_target_action settings (pause and promote behave differently
than shutdown), external tools such as pg_rewind, backup solutions,
and monitoring systems depend on this value for operational decisions,
I support moving forward with this patch.
Regarding Michael's point about simplifying the minRecoveryPoint
update logic—I completely agree that reducing code paths and
complexity in this area would be valuable. If there are specific areas
that could benefit from simplification or refactoring, I would be
interested in helping with that work.
I haven't reviewed the patch in detail yet, but I will do so and share
any feedback or comments.
Best Regards,
Nitin Jadhav
Azure Database for PostgreSQL
Microsoft
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Ilia Evdokimov | 2026-06-09 12:39:09 | Re: Extended statistics improvement: multi-column MCV missing values |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2026-06-09 12:14:20 | Re: Heads Up: cirrus-ci is shutting down June 1st |