I wrote: > Looking back at your original discussion of the bug, > http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2007-06/msg00234.php > I'm wondering why you chose option #3 rather than option #4? > I still find the proposed patch a bit crufty.
In particular, it seems like a patch per #4 would be a one-liner: *** src/backend/access/transam/xlog.c.orig Wed Sep 26 18:36:30 2007 --- src/backend/access/transam/xlog.c Thu Sep 27 12:20:56 2007 *************** *** 5092,5101 **** * * If we stopped short of the end of WAL during recovery, then we are * generating a new timeline and must assign it a unique new ID. * Otherwise, we can just extend the timeline we were in when we ran out * of WAL. */ ! if (needNewTimeLine) { ThisTimeLineID = findNewestTimeLine(recoveryTargetTLI) + 1; ereport(LOG, --- 5092,5103 ---- * * If we stopped short of the end of WAL during recovery, then we are * generating a new timeline and must assign it a unique new ID. + * We also force a new timeline when recovering from an archive, to avoid + * problems with trying to overwrite existing archived segments. * Otherwise, we can just extend the timeline we were in when we ran out * of WAL. */ ! if (needNewTimeLine || (InArchiveRecovery && XLogArchivingActive())) { ThisTimeLineID = findNewestTimeLine(recoveryTargetTLI) + 1; ereport(LOG, though I admit I've not tested this. The comments in exitArchiveRecovery probably need adjustment too --- re-reading them, it seems obvious that the current approach is broken by design, because it *must* lead to an attempt to overwrite a previously archived version of the last segment. regards, tom lane ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq