Hi, On 2023-11-14 09:13:44 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Mon, Nov 13, 2023 at 03:41:44PM -0800, Andres Freund wrote: > > On 2023-11-09 12:16:52 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > >> On Thu, Nov 09, 2023 at 12:04:19PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > >> > Sure, sorry for the confusion. By "we'd do nothing", I mean precirely > >> > "to take no specific action related to archive recovery and recovery > >> > parameters at the end of recovery", meaning that a combination of > >> > backup_label with no signal file would be the same as crash recovery, > >> > replaying WAL up to the end of what can be found in pg_wal/, and only > >> > that. > > > > I don't think those are equivalent - in the "backup_label with no signal > > file" > > case we start recovery at a different location than the "crash recovery" > > case > > does. > > It depends on how you see things, and based on my read of the thread > or the code we've never really put a clear definition what a > "backup_label with no signal file" should do. The definition I was > suggesting is to make it work the same way as crash recovery > internally: > - use the start LSN from the backup_label.
That's fundamentally different from crash recovery! > - replay up to the end of local WAL. > - don't rely on any recovery GUCs. > - if at the end of recovery replay has not reached the end-of-backup > record, then fail. Also different from crash recovery. It doesn't make sense to me to say "work the same way" when there are such fundamental differences. Greetings, Andres Freund
