I would look at WAL files as a sequence of commits and not a sequence of files within timelines where you can specify either with recovery_target_time or recovery_target_xid the point of consistency you want to reach.
We use logshipping replication, and have recently noticed a nasty bug where, in certain very rare cases, the primary archive_command program will fail to send the WAL file to the standby but report good return code 0 to postgresql. In such cases, if the standby then triggers its termination of recovery mode, it will come up in normal accessible mode but missing the log records from that last WAL file.
This is a bug in our code which we will fix, but I am wondering if it means there is a possibility of worse than missing some updates. I.e. could it result in this was-standby cluster now having a corrupt database (e.g. an index entry with no matching heap slot or something like that - or worse)?
I think the question is whether the end of a WAL file is a point of consistency? like the timestamp you can specify in the recovery.conf for a point-in-time recovery? Or does postgresql xlogger just chop each WAL segment at the physical page boundary?
