(sigh..)
At Tue, 24 Aug 2021 11:35:06 +0900 (JST), Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota.ntt@gmail.com> wrote in
> > IIUC partial WAL files are handled because the next file in the
> > sequence with the given TimeLineID won't be there, so we will fall
> > back to a directory scan and pick it up. Timeline history files are
> > handled by forcing a directory scan, which should work because they
> > always have the highest priority. Backup history files, however, do
> > not seem to be handled. I think one approach to fixing that is to
> > also treat backup history files similarly to timeline history files.
> > If one is created, we force a directory scan, and the directory scan
> > logic will consider backup history files as higher priority than
> > everything but timeline history files.
>
> Backup history files are (currently) just informational and they are
> finally processed at the end of a bulk-archiving performed by the fast
> path. However, I feel that it is cleaner to trigger a directory scan
> every time we add an other-than-a-regular-WAL-file, as base-backup or
- promotion are not supposed happen so infrequently.
+ promotion are not supposed happen so frequently.
--
Kyotaro Horiguchi
NTT Open Source Software Center