Re: recovery.signal not cleaned up when both signal files are present
| От | David Steele |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: recovery.signal not cleaned up when both signal files are present |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | d3bc8b47-de83-4434-94bc-055ae44d444f@pgbackrest.org обсуждение |
| Ответ на | Re: recovery.signal not cleaned up when both signal files are present (Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com>) |
| Ответы |
Re: recovery.signal not cleaned up when both signal files are present
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 2/13/26 20:27, Fujii Masao wrote: > On Fri, Feb 13, 2026 at 3:18 PM Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote: >> >> On Fri, Feb 13, 2026 at 03:05:45PM +0900, Fujii Masao wrote: >>> Yeah, so I've added the test as suggested. The updated patch is attached. >> >> >> What's the point in having the check for the files in data_dir? The >> second one for standby2 should be enough as this is to test only >> readRecoverySignalFile(). > > I added that test to verify that both files are removed even in the normal > standby case (i.e., when only standby.signal is present). However, if testing > only the case where both signal files are present is sufficient, I'm fine with > removing the data_dir check. Attached is an updated patch that checks only > the latter case for standby2. > > I will commit this patch. I'm fine with the additional checks in v2. They are inexpensive and show that the changes (probably) don't have side effects. But I don't feel strongly about it so either v2 or v3 is OK with me. Regards, -David
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: