Re: standby recovery fails (tablespace related) (tentative patch and discussion) - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: standby recovery fails (tablespace related) (tentative patch and discussion)
Date
Msg-id CA+TgmoZXTYEOPQVMW4TSPtcxsFEu6=h7UWJWv58TmBytT-6zMg@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: standby recovery fails (tablespace related) (tentative patch and discussion)  (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>)
Responses Re: standby recovery fails (tablespace related) (tentative patch and discussion)
List pgsql-hackers
On Fri, Mar 25, 2022 at 8:26 AM Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> wrote:
> On 2022-Mar-21, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > I had a look at this latest version of the patch, and found some things
> > to tweak.  Attached is v21 with three main changes from Kyotaro's v20:
>
> Pushed this, backpatching to 14 and 13.  It would have been good to
> backpatch further, but there's an (textually trivial) merge conflict
> related to commit e6d8069522c8.  Because that commit conceptually
> touches the same area that this bugfix is about, I'm not sure that
> backpatching further without a lot more thought is wise -- particularly
> so when there's no way to automate the test in branches older than
> master.
>
> This is quite annoying, considering that the bug was reported shortly
> before 12 went into beta.

I think that the warnings this patch issues may cause some unnecessary
end-user alarm. It seems to me that they are basically warning about a
situation that is unusual but not scary. Isn't the appropriate level
for that DEBUG1, maybe without the errhint?

-- 
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Justin Pryzby
Date:
Subject: Re: [WIP] Allow pg_upgrade to copy segments of the same relfilenode in parallel
Next
From: Stephen Frost
Date:
Subject: Re: role self-revocation