Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2020 17:44:50 +0200
From: Jehan-Guillaume de Rorthais <jgdr@dalibo.com>
To: Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com>
Cc: Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota.ntt@gmail.com>,
 pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org, michael@paquier.xyz
Subject: Re: [BUG] non archived WAL removed during production crash recovery
Message-ID: <20200402174450.70de9ab5@firost>
In-Reply-To: <3d543ef2-ae02-5e59-3bfe-b79d00dab360@oss.nttdata.com>
References: <20200402.130443.1791362864704140391.horikyota.ntt@gmail.com>
	<20200402.130734.613319908534820379.horikyota.ntt@gmail.com>
	<03900fc5-fff4-109a-fe69-83de2c167929@oss.nttdata.com>
	<20200402.162323.770257425358491539.horikyota.ntt@gmail.com>
	<ca964b3a-61a0-902e-c7b3-3abbc01a921f@oss.nttdata.com>
	<20200402154915.4984cff2@firost>
	<3d543ef2-ae02-5e59-3bfe-b79d00dab360@oss.nttdata.com>
Organization: Dalibo
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, 2 Apr 2020 23:55:46 +0900
Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com> wrote:

[...]
> > Well, it seems to me that this is what you suggested few paragraph away:
> >=20
> >    =C2=AB.ready files are removed when either archive_mode!=3Dalways in=
 standby
> > mode=C2=BB =20
>=20
> Yes, so I'm fine with that as the first consensus because the behavior
> is obviously better than the current one. *If* the case where no WAL files
> should be removed is found, I'd just like to propose the additional patch.

Do you mean to want to produce the next patch yourself?