Hi all, On Tue, Sep 8, 2026 at 5:21 PM Zsolt Parragi <[email protected]> wrote: > > Thank you both for the review! After reviewing the issue again, I > agree that my 0002 was wrong. > > 0001 received a trivial rebase as there were no conflicts, and I > simply removed 0002 in favor of ChangAo Chen's thread.
Thank you for the updated patch. I reviewed and tested the patch. The change in StartupXLOG() looks correct. The minRecoveryPoint check is now enforced independently of ArchiveRecoveryRequested, which covers the pg_rewind case where minRecoveryPoint is set without archive-recovery signal files. The existing online-backup WAL handling is also preserved. I also verified the new regression test for the missing source WAL scenario. The test covers both failure when the required WAL is unavailable and also the successful recovery when the WAL is available through archive recovery. Overall, the patch looks correct to me and I did not find any issues during review and testing. Regards Solai
