Hi Shihao, Thanks for v3. I applied it on current master and the pg_resetwal tests pass.
On -f: pg_resetwal only lets it override uncertainty about the state of pg_control, not known facts about the directory. postmaster.pid is the closest case. -f doesn't bypass it and the user has to delete the file by hand, even though a stale one after a crash is normal. A backup_label looks like that second kind to me, so I'd keep v3 as is. Thanks, João Marcelo Em seg., 5 de out. de 2026 às 00:47, shihao zhong <[email protected]> escreveu: > Hi Joao, > > T hanks for testing it, and for checking the order of operations. > > > The Discussion: trailer points at David's message > > in the CF 4997 thread; I guess it should point at this thread. > > The patch came out of that thread. That message is where David said > -f should not override the check. v3 keeps it and adds this thread as > a second Discussion line. > > > And a > > restored backup normally has tablespace_map too, while the check only > > looks at backup_label; is ignoring it on purpose? > Yes. The server reads tablespace_map only when backup_label is there. > Without backup_label it renames the file to tablespace_map.old and > starts as usual. So tablespace_map alone does not stop the server from > starting, and there is nothing for pg_resetwal to guard against. > v3 also leaves out the --cluster-state patches, as David suggested. > 0001 and 0002 have no code changes. > > Thanks, > Shihao > >
