Re: pg_rewind does not rewind diverging timelines

Thank you Japin,

I double checked with the latest as well, just in case, but your patch
looks fine.

Best wishes,
Mats Kindahl

On 7/17/26 17:59, Japin Li wrote:
> Hi, all
>
> On Sun, 21 Jun 2026 at 11:09, Mats Kindahl <mats(dot)kindahl(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> On 6/8/26 12:48, Andrey Borodin wrote:
>>
>> On 30 Apr 2026, at 13:19, Mats Kindahl <mats(dot)kindahl(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>
>> There is one scenario that I assume is known that TLC found, but does not seem to be fixed. It is a relatively rare case, but since the fix is quite easy, I thought I'd share it with you and get feedback.
>>
>> Hi Mats,
>>
>> Hi Andrey,
>>
>> Thanks for looking at this.
>>
>> Thanks for working on this. I think the problem is real, but I wonder if
>> adding a separate UUID to timeline history files is solving it one step
>> too late.
>>
>> If two independent promotions manage to choose the same numeric TLI, then
>> we already have two different histories with the same timeline identifier.
>> Their history files will also have the same name. A UUID in the file lets
>> tools detect the mismatch afterwards, but it does not prevent the archive
>> namespace from containing two different meanings for the same TLI.
>>
>> Yes, that is correct.
>>
>> In normal deployments with a shared archive this should only be possible
>> when the history file is not visible to the other promoting server:
>> either there is no usable restore_command/shared archive, or there is a
>> race around publishing and observing the history file. In other words, TLI
>> allocation is not atomic, but it is intended to be coordinated through the
>> archive.
>>
>> Yes, that is the ideal way it should work when you have a shared archive. This works because you have a central authority
>> that synchronizes the timelines (in theory, not counting bugs).
>>
>> Maybe we should keep TimelineID as the actual branch identifier and make
>> that allocation harder to collide instead of adding a second identifier.
>> For example, when choosing a new TLI, add some randomness rather than just
>> using the next sequential value.
>>
>> That would make the race window much less
>> dangerous: two independent promotions would be extremely unlikely to
>> choose the same TLI, the history file names would remain distinct, and TLI
>> would keep its current role as the timeline identifier.
>> This also keeps the operational model simpler. TimelineID is already the
>> identifier exposed in WAL file names, history file names, logs, and
>> recovery configuration. If we add UUIDs, we effectively introduce another
>> identity for the same object, and tools then need to reason about both.
>> If instead we make TLI allocation less deterministic under races, the
>> existing model remains intact.
>>
>> Does that framing make sense, or am I missing a case where duplicate TLIs
>> are unavoidable even with a shared archive and a less collision-prone
>> allocation scheme?
>>
>> I considered using some random increment of the TLI in the manner you describe but there are some issues that makes this
>> solution more complicated from an operational perspective:
>>
>> * If you skip some TLIs (in the sense pick a TLI that is "random but larger"), then it is not clear what the relation
>> between them are.
>>
>> * The history files contain the complete linkage of the timelines, so that is covered, but the naming would be strange.
>>
>> * For example, if you have history files 1, 5, 7, and 8, then these can all belong to different timelines, (except 1), or
>> be a single timeline and it is hard to understand which one without looking through the files.
>>
>> * With more promotions, the relation becomes even more strange, and the risk of collisions increases. (For example,
>> imagine one timeline with 1, 5, 7, 8, 11, and one timeline that forks off 1. Then any increment of 4, 6, 7, or 10 will
>> result in a collision.)
>>
>> * To actually reduce the risk significantly, you need to have a very wide range of the added randomness. Taking a smaller
>> number is easier to work with, but then you need to handle that some timelines can collide in some manner.
>> * Normally, the history file with the highest number will be the only relevant one. With this approach, you have to check
>> the contents of the files to understand which ones are relevant, which increases the operational burden.
>>
>> In contrast, if you use an UUID in this manner.
>>
>> * Adding an UUID does not require a central coordinator and is not likely to collide (on the level "impossible to
>> collide") and is very straightforward to add. It also comes with a low risk since the places in the code that requires
>> changes are very few and not likely to have unexpected consequences elsewhere. This works both with and without a
>> shared archive.
>> * Normally, a shared archive should only contain a single timeline. Anything else is an anomaly and should be corrected.
>> * I think it is still necessary to handle the case where you do not have a shared archive; it would be an odd limitation
>> to say that promote only works if you have a shared archive
>> * The UUID still serves a purpose in capturing a situation where things have gone wrong. Think of the UUID as similar to
>> a "checksum" safety and an extra precaution to prevent things from going wrong.
>>
>> In short, I think the operational issues with random increment of the history file number is worse, not better, and we
>> should deal with the name collisions correctly for shared archives instead. There is an issue in that it need to work
>> even in the case where you have a promotion that generates a new UUID but the correct history file exists (reported in
>> the other message) that I will look into.
>>
> I would like to know the current status of this patch. I have encountered the
> same issue in practice, and I think the proposed solution is reasonable.
>
> I found that the v6 patch does not apply cleanly to the current master (1f414035135)
> because commit 7f77b2a89bd4 changed the parameter type of writeTimeLineHistory().
>
> I've rebased the patch and attached v7.
>
>> Best wishes,
>> Mats Kindahl
>>
>> Best regards, Andrey Borodin.