Re: [Patch] pg_rewind: options to use restore_command from recovery.conf or command line

From: Alexey Kondratov <a(dot)kondratov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>
To: Liudmila Mantrova <l(dot)mantrova(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Andrey Borodin <x4mmm(at)yandex-team(dot)ru>, David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6(at)gmail(dot)com>, vladimirlesk(at)yandex-team(dot)ru, dsarafan(at)yandex-team(dot)ru
Subject: Re: [Patch] pg_rewind: options to use restore_command from recovery.conf or command line
Date: 2019-08-01 16:53:09
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 26.07.2019 20:43, Liudmila Mantrova wrote:
> I would like to suggest a couple of changes to docs and comments,
> please see the attachment.
> The "...or fetched on startup" part also seems wrong here, but it's
> not a part of your patch, so I'm going to ask about it on psql-docs
> separately.

Agreed, thank you a lot! Yes, "...or fetched on startup" looks a bit
confusing for me, since the whole paragraph is about target server
before running pg_rewind, but this statement is more about target server
started first time after running pg_rewind, which is discussed in the
next paragraph.

> It might also be useful to reword the following error messages:
> - "using restored from archive version of file \"%s\""
> - "could not open restored from archive file \"%s\"
> We could probably say something like "could not open file \"%s\"
> restored from WAL archive" instead.

I have reworded these and some similar messages, thanks. New patch with
changed messages is attached.

> On a more general note, I wonder if everyone is happy with the
> --using-postgresql-conf option name, or we should continue searching
> for a narrower term. Unfortunately, I don't have any better
> suggestions right now, but I believe it should be clear that its
> purpose is to fetch missing WAL files for target. What do you think?

I don't like it either, but this one was my best guess then. Maybe
--restore-target-wal instead of --using-postgresql-conf will be better?
And --target-restore-command instead of --restore-command if we want to
specify that this is restore_command for target server?


Alexey Kondratov

Postgres Professional
Russian Postgres Company

Attachment Content-Type Size
v9-0001-pg_rewind-options-to-use-restore_command-from-com.patch text/x-patch 21.4 KB

In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Konstantin Knizhnik 2019-08-01 16:56:53 Re: [HACKERS] Cached plans and statement generalization
Previous Message Peter Geoghegan 2019-08-01 16:41:59 Re: Patch for SortSupport implementation on inet/cdir