Re: BUG #17375: RECOVERY TARGET TIME RESTORE IS FAILING TO START SERVER

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Tom Lane
Тема Re: BUG #17375: RECOVERY TARGET TIME RESTORE IS FAILING TO START SERVER
Дата
Msg-id 1183620.1642778446@sss.pgh.pa.us
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: BUG #17375: RECOVERY TARGET TIME RESTORE IS FAILING TO START SERVER  ("David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@gmail.com>)
Ответы RE: BUG #17375: RECOVERY TARGET TIME RESTORE IS FAILING TO START SERVER  (B Ganesh Kishan <bkishan@commvault.com>)
Re: BUG #17375: RECOVERY TARGET TIME RESTORE IS FAILING TO START SERVER  (Bharath Rupireddy <bharath.rupireddyforpostgres@gmail.com>)
Список pgsql-bugs
"David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@gmail.com> writes:
> On Fri, Jan 21, 2022 at 4:20 AM B Ganesh Kishan <bkishan@commvault.com>
> wrote:
>> The problem is that we are providing a time target that Postgres does not
>> know how to reach. This is because there are no transactions in between the
>> backups.

> I don't quite follow the overall situation but given your observation and
> apparent acceptance of the pre-v13 behavior just don't specify a restore
> point and let WAL replay everything.

Yeah.  If I'm understanding the situation, when you specify a target time
that is later than the last transaction available from WAL, older versions
silently assumed that stopping with the last available transaction is OK.
Newer ones complain because it's not clear whether that's OK --- in
particular, there's no good way to be sure that no WAL is missing.

On the whole I think that's a good change.  I can sympathize with the
complaint that it creates additional complexity for restore scripts,
but I'm a little dubious that this is something you'd be wanting to
script anyway.

            regards, tom lane



В списке pgsql-bugs по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: "David G. Johnston"
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: BUG #17375: RECOVERY TARGET TIME RESTORE IS FAILING TO START SERVER
Следующее
От: Japin Li
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: BUG #17376: Adding unique column with a function() default results in "could not read block 0 in file" error