On 2021/04/01 12:45, osumi.takami...@fujitsu.com wrote:
Thank you for sharing your ideas about the hint. Absolutely need to change the message. In my opinion, combining the basic idea of yours and Fujii-san's would be the best. Updated the patch and made v05. The changes I made are * rewording of errhint although this has become long ! * fix of the typo in the TAP test * modification of my past changes not to change conditions in CheckRequiredParameterValues * rename of the test file to 024_archive_recovery.pl because two files are made since the last update of this patch * pgindent is conducted to check my alignment again.
Thanks for updating the patch! + errhint("Use a backup taken after setting wal_level to higher than minimal " + "or recover to the point in time before wal_level becomes minimal even though it causes data loss"))); ISTM that "or recover to the point in time before wal_level was changed to minimal even though it may cause data loss" sounds better. Thought? +# Check if standby.signal exists +my $pgdata = $new_node->data_dir; +ok (-f "${pgdata}/standby.signal", 'standby.signal was created'); +# Check if recovery.signal exists +my $path = $another_node->data_dir; +ok (-f "${path}/recovery.signal", 'recovery.signal was created'); Why are these tests necessary? These seem to test that init_from_backup() works expectedly based on the parameter "standby". But if we are sure that init_from_backup() works fine, these tests don't seem to be necessary. +use Config; This is not necessary? +# Make the wal_level back to replica +$node->append_conf('postgresql.conf', $replica_config); +$node->restart; +check_wal_level('replica', 'wal_level went back to replica again'); IMO it's better to comment why this server restart is necessary. As far as I understand correctly, this is necessary to ensure the WAL file containing the record about the change of wal_level (to minimal) is archived, so that the subsequent archive recovery will be able to replay it.
By the way, when I build postgres with this patch and enable-coverage option, the results of RT becomes unstable. Does someone know the reason ? When it fails, I get stderr like below
I have no idea about this. Does this happen even without the patch? Regards, -- Fujii Masao Advanced Computing Technology Center Research and Development Headquarters NTT DATA CORPORATION