Re: recovery.signal not cleaned up when both signal files are present - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Michael Paquier
Subject Re: recovery.signal not cleaned up when both signal files are present
Date
Msg-id aY6M8HwCq6Zvt00Y@paquier.xyz
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: recovery.signal not cleaned up when both signal files are present  (David Steele <david@pgbackrest.org>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Fri, Feb 13, 2026 at 12:55:15AM +0000, David Steele wrote:
> Reluctantly I have to agree to not back patch this. I'm not sure how this
> change would break existing recovery processes but experience tells me that
> it probably would.
>
> Instead -- I wonder if we could add a warning in the back branches?

I am not convinced that going down to that is really necessary based
on the lack of complaints, and it could even be qualified as
disturbing for existing cases as well?  Let's leave that as a
HEAD-only change.
--
Michael

Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)"
Date:
Subject: RE: Improve pg_sync_replication_slots() to wait for primary to advance
Next
From: John Naylor
Date:
Subject: Re: tuple radix sort