Re: Requiring recovery.signal or standby.signal when recovering with a backup_label

From: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
To: David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net>
Cc: Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, zxwsbg12138(at)gmail(dot)com, david(dot)zhang(at)highgo(dot)ca
Subject: Re: Requiring recovery.signal or standby.signal when recovering with a backup_label
Date: 2023-10-30 07:08:50
Message-ID: ZT9Wgn8lz2pETGb9@paquier.xyz
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Oct 27, 2023 at 09:31:10AM -0400, David Steele wrote:
> That sounds like the right plan to me. Nice and simple.

I'll tackle that in a separate thread with a patch registered for the
upcoming CF of November.

> I'm still +1 for the patch as it stands.

I have been reviewing the patch, and applied portions of it as of
dc5bd388 and 1ffdc03c and they're quite independent pieces. After
that, the remaining bits of the patch to change the behavior is now
straight-forward. I have written a commit message for it, while on
it, as per the attached.
--
Michael

Attachment Content-Type Size
v4-0001-Require-recovery.signal-or-standby.signal-when-re.patch text/x-diff 6.5 KB

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bharath Rupireddy 2023-10-30 07:20:44 Add BF member koel-like indentation checks to SanityCheck CI
Previous Message Bharath Rupireddy 2023-10-30 07:08:47 Re: A recent message added to pg_upgade