Re: Requiring recovery.signal or standby.signal when recovering with a backup_label - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Michael Paquier
Subject Re: Requiring recovery.signal or standby.signal when recovering with a backup_label
Date
Msg-id ZUBNauUNbeq5xTtf@paquier.xyz
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Requiring recovery.signal or standby.signal when recovering with a backup_label  (Roberto Mello <roberto.mello@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Mon, Oct 30, 2023 at 10:32:28AM -0600, Roberto Mello wrote:
> I realize the original use of "touch" is a valid shortcut for what I
> suggest above, however that will be less clear for the not-so-un*x-inclined
> users of Postgres, while for some it'll be downright confusing, IMHO. It
> also provides the advantage of being crystal clear on what needs to be done
> to fix the problem.

Indeed, "touch" may be better in this path if we'd throw an ERROR to
enforce a given policy, and that's more consistent with the rest of
the area.
--
Michael

Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Michael Paquier
Date:
Subject: Re: Requiring recovery.signal or standby.signal when recovering with a backup_label
Next
From: Ajin Cherian
Date:
Subject: Re: Synchronizing slots from primary to standby