On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 2:52 AM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi.kyot...@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote: > Hello, thank you for the discussion. > > At Tue, 1 Apr 2014 11:41:20 -0400, Robert Haas wrote >>> I don't find that very radical at all. The backup_label file is >>> *supposed* to be removed on the master if it crashes during the >>> backup; and it should never be removed from the backup itself. At >>> least that's how I understand it. Unfortunately, people too often > > The code indeed seems to assume that, and I couldn't think of any > measure to avoid that dead-end once recovery sequence reads > backup label accidentially left behind. I thought up to remove > backup label during immediate shutdown on prvious versions, like > 9.4 does. > > CancelBackup does only stat-unlink-rename sequence so I think > this doesn't obstruct immediate shutdown sequence. And this > doesn't change any seeming behavior or interfaces just except for > this case. What do you think about this? Isn't this also > applicable for older versions?
Advertising
I don't think we should consider changing long-established behavior in the back-branches. The old behavior may not be ideal, but that doesn't mean it's a bug. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
