[MASSMAIL]Recovery of .partial WAL segments - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Stefan Fercot
Subject [MASSMAIL]Recovery of .partial WAL segments
Date
Msg-id PUrgXj3toL_CVxytc7fzYQNlY5FiUllklbS9UL1wU5ptiJAC2ChrF64EwO8neCKU9QnET5Zjv1HpMLFAgQPJQxOzM9f49jjkV56gEpUOYw8=@protonmail.com
Whole thread Raw
Responses Re: Recovery of .partial WAL segments
Re: Recovery of .partial WAL segments
List pgsql-hackers
Dear hackers,

Generating a ".partial" WAL segment is pretty common nowadays (using pg_receivewal or during standby promotion).
However, we currently don't do anything with it unless the user manually removes that ".partial" extension.

The 028_pitr_timelines tests are highlighting that fact: with test data being being in 000000020000000000000003 and
000000010000000000000003.partial,a recovery following the latest timeline (2) will succeed but fail if we follow the
currenttimeline (1). 

By simply trying to fetch the ".partial" file in XLogFileRead, we can easily recover more data and also cover that
(currenttimeline) recovery case. 

So, this proposed patch makes XLogFileRead try to restore ".partial" WAL archives and adds a test to 028_pitr_timelines
usingcurrent recovery_target_timeline. 

As far as I've seen, the current pg_receivewal tests only seem to cover the archives generation but not actually trying
torecover using it. I wasn't sure it was interesting to add such tests right now, so I didn't considered it for this
patch.

Many thanks in advance for your feedback and thoughts about this,
Kind Regards,
--
Stefan FERCOT
Data Egret (https://dataegret.com)
Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Morris de Oryx
Date:
Subject: Re: Looking for an index that supports top-n searches by enforcing a max-n automatically
Next
From: shveta malik
Date:
Subject: Re: Synchronizing slots from primary to standby