On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 7:52 AM, Fujii Masao <masao.fu...@gmail.com> wrote: > 1. the trigger file containing "smart" is created. > 2. pg_standby is executed. > 2-1. nextWALfile is restored. > 2-2. the trigger file is deleted because nextWALfile+1 doesn't exist. > 3. the restored nextWALfile is applied. > 4. pg_standby is executed again to restore nextWALfile+1.
I don't think it should happen. IMHO, it's an acceptable compromise to replay all the WAL files present when I created the trigger file. So if I have the smart shutdown trigger file and I don't have any nextWALfile+1, I can remove the trigger file and stop the recovery: pg_standby won't be executed again after that, even if a nextWALfile+1 appeared while replaying the previous WAL file. That said, stupid question: do we have a way to know the nextWALfile+1 name to test if it exists? nextWALfile is transmitted through the restore_command API and I'm wondering if we can have nextWALfile+1 name without changing the restore_command API. -- Guillaume -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
