Re: [BUG] pg_basebackup from disconnected standby fails - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Michael Paquier
Subject Re: [BUG] pg_basebackup from disconnected standby fails
Date
Msg-id CAB7nPqQkJv-3Cbi=yDytoC9eWPfmjrj7-DLOn9C4YsB1twAKiw@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [BUG] pg_basebackup from disconnected standby fails  (Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi.kyotaro@lab.ntt.co.jp>)
Responses Re: [BUG] pg_basebackup from disconnected standby fails
List pgsql-hackers
On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 8:31 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
<horiguchi.kyotaro@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote:
>> +# Take a second backup of the standby while the master is offline.
>> +$node_master->stop;
>> +$node_standby_1->backup('my_backup_2');
>> +$node_master->start;
>
> I'm not sure that adding the test case for a particular bug like
> this is appropriate. But it would be acceptable because it
> doesn't take long time and it is separate from standard checks.

We already take a backup from a standby when master is connected, it
should not cost much in terms of time.

> It seems to me that we could more agressively advance the
> minRecoveryPoint (but must not let it go too far..), but it is
> right for it to aim a bit smaller than the ideal location.

It may be risky to propose such a change for a backpatch. Anyway, in
any case there is no guarantee that when using the low-level backup
routines pg_start/stop_backup with a custom backup method the minimum
recovery point will be correct.. pg_basebackup does that a bit more
carefully if I recall correctly (too lazy to look at the code now :)).
-- 
Michael



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "''bruce@momjian.us' *EXTERN*'"
Date:
Subject: Re: Prepared statements and generic plans
Next
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: Reviewing freeze map code