On Tue, Feb 10, 2026 at 8:37 AM Michael Paquier <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 10, 2026 at 12:41:48AM +0900, Fujii Masao wrote: > > +1 on also cleaning up recovery.signal when both signal files are present. > > > > The documentation states that standby.signal takes precedence if both > > files exist, > > and this configuration is not described as unacceptable. So, it doesn't > > seem ok > > to prevent the server from starting in this case. > > If both are present, startup should be OK and we should be in standby > mode. Like reported, it really sounds like a problem to me to enforce > unnecessary TLI jumps because a recovery.signal is still around after > a standby promotion. So, yes, removing it would be a good thing. > However I would argue against a backpatch as there is a risk of > slightly breaking existing recovery flows as well. Doing such a > change like that on HEAD is OK. This area of the code has always been > really sensitive to deal with in stable branches, particularly slight > changes in recovery behavior that could damage deployments (aka > monitoring) after a minor version upgrade.
+1 to apply this change only to the master branch. Patch attached. Regards, -- Fujii Masao
v1-0001-Remove-recovery.signal-at-recovery-end-when-both-.patch
Description: Binary data
