On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 9:55 AM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 12:09 PM, Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 3:29 PM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 10:56 AM, Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> Or what about removing tablespace_map file at the beginning of recovery > > >> whenever backup_label doesn't exist? > > > > > > Yes, thats another way, but is it safe to assume that user won't need > > > that file, > > > > Is there really case where tablespace_map is necessary even though backup_label > > doesn't exist? If not, it seems safe to get rid of the file when backup_label > > is not present. > > > > > I mean in the valid scenario (where both backup_label and > > > tablespace_map are present and usable) also, we rename them to > > > *.old rather than deleting it. > > > > Yep, I'm OK to make the recovery rename the file to *.old rather than delete it. > > > > This sounds safe to me, unless anybody else has different opinion > I will write a patch to fix this way. >
Attached patch provides a fix as per above discussion.
