| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com |
| Subject: | Re: Possible corruption by CreateRestartPoint at promotion |
| Date: | 2022-05-06 23:43:27 |
| Message-ID: | YnWyn+SQqdYrFUUS@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, May 06, 2022 at 08:52:45AM -0700, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> I was looking at other changes in this area (e.g., 3c64dcb), and now I'm
> wondering if we actually should invalidate the minRecoveryPoint when the
> control file no longer indicates archive recovery. Specifically, what
> happens if a base backup of a newly promoted standby is used for a
> point-in-time restore? If the checkpoint location is updated and all
> previous segments have been recycled/removed, it seems like the
> minRecoveryPoint might point to a missing segment.
A new checkpoint is enforced at the beginning of the backup which
would update minRecoveryPoint and minRecoveryPointTLI, while we don't
a allow a backup to finish if it began on a standby has just promoted
in-between.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2022-05-06 23:49:24 | Re: Mark all GUC variable as PGDLLIMPORT |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2022-05-06 22:08:18 | Re: [RFC] building postgres with meson -v8 |