A typical scenario would be if we have a high availability setup with two 
replicated clusters, primary and a standby. Throw patroni in the mix to manage 
automatic failover.
If we use a backup solution like PGbackrest to take full backups and archive 
the Wal files. Let's say we have a scenario where patroni starts flapping 
between the clusters and promotes both clusters several times but finally 
settles and chooses to continue running the primary cluster with an older 
timeline than the newest timeline in the pgbackrest repo, then when we try to 
reinit or restore the standby, by default, it will attempt to restore to latest 
timeline.
Leaving the admins to have to figure out what is the correct timeline to 
restore to, which at the end of the day needs to match the primary's timeline 
anyways, regardless of the latest timeline files in the pgbackrest repo.
Is either that or the admins need to go in the archive repo and manually delete 
the related wall files from the timeline that doesn't match the primary to 
prevent conflicts.
Is a common scenario.

Yahoo Mail: Search, Organize, Conquer 
 
  On Thu, Sep 11, 2025 at 9:05 PM, David G. 
Johnston<david.g.johns...@gmail.com> wrote:   On Thursday, September 11, 2025, 
Efrain J. Berdecia <ejberde...@yahoo.com> wrote:


One-line Summary: This new recovery_target_timeline option would ensure that 
when rebuilding a replica cluster, the recovery stays in the primary cluster's 
timeline making it fool proof and avoiding recovery timeline inconsistencies.


Business Use-case: Reduce human interaction when rebuilding replicas where 
unwanted timelines might have been archived in the repo and speed up recovery.


User impact with the change: New parameter option available 


Implementation details: I would need a subject matter expert to please make 
this feature a reality 

Estimated Development Time: unknown 


Category: Include the text: Restore, replication


Feature requests with this little info are probably better discussed on the 
-general list to garner support for the idea.
David J.   

Reply via email to