Hi,
On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 3:54 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com> writes:
>> Tom Lane wrote:
>>> That's a good point; don't we recover files under names like
>>> RECOVERYXLOG, not under names that could possibly conflict with regular
>>> WAL files?
>
>> Yes. But we rename RECOVERYXLOG to 000000010000000000000057 or similar
>> at the end of recovery, in exitArchiveRecovery().
>
>> Thinking about this some more, I think we should've changed
>> exitArchiveRecovery() rather than RemoveOldXlogFiles(): it would be more
>> robust if exitArchiveRecovery() always copied the last WAL file rather
>> than just renamed it. It doesn't seem safe to rely on the file the
>> symlink points to to be valid after recovery is finished, and we might
>> write to it before it's recycled, so the current fix isn't complete.
>
> Hmm. I think really the reason it's coded that way is that we assumed
> the recovery command would be physically copying the file from someplace
> else. pg_standby is violating the backend's expectations by using a
> symlink. And I really doubt that the technique is saving anything, since
> the data has to be read in from the archive location anyway.
>
> I'm leaning back to the position that pg_standby's -l option is simply a
> bad idea and should be removed.
I'm OK with this. And, we should document the assumption for
restore_command? Otherwise, some users might wrongly use
'ln' command to restore archived files.
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION
NTT Open Source Software Center