Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2020 13:58:30 +0200
From: Jehan-Guillaume de Rorthais <jgdr@dalibo.com>
To: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
Cc: Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com>, Kyotaro Horiguchi
 <horikyota.ntt@gmail.com>, pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [BUG] non archived WAL removed during production crash recovery
Message-ID: <20200408135830.25a8e2ef@firost>
In-Reply-To: <20200408022345.GC1606@paquier.xyz>
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>
	<20200403182625.0fccc6fd@firost>
	<4d48dbdb-e1db-a2d6-2fb2-c2a66efa7818@oss.nttdata.com>
	<20200407171736.61906608@firost>
	<20200408022345.GC1606@paquier.xyz>
Organization: Dalibo
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, 8 Apr 2020 11:23:45 +0900
Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote:

> On Tue, Apr 07, 2020 at 05:17:36PM +0200, Jehan-Guillaume de Rorthais wrote:
> > I'm not sure who would need this information before the WAL machinery is up,
> > but is it safe enough in your opinion for futur usage of
> > GetRecoveryState()? Do you think this information might be useful before
> > the WAL machinery is set? Current "user" (eg. restoreTwoPhaseData()) only
> > need to know if we are in recovery, whatever the reason.  
> 
> (I had this thread marked as something to look at, but could not.
> Sorry for the delay).

(no worries :))

> >  src/test/recovery/t/011_crash_recovery.pl | 16 ++++++++++++++--
> >  1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/src/test/recovery/t/011_crash_recovery.pl
> > b/src/test/recovery/t/011_crash_recovery.pl index ca6e92b50d..ce2e899891
> > 100644 --- a/src/test/recovery/t/011_crash_recovery.pl
> > +++ b/src/test/recovery/t/011_crash_recovery.pl
> > @@ -15,11 +15,17 @@ if ($Config{osname} eq 'MSWin32')  
> 
> May I ask why this new test is added to 011_crash_recovery.pl which is
> aimed at testing crash and redo, while we have 002_archiving.pl that
> is dedicated to archiving in a more general manner?

I thought it was a better place because the test happen during crash recovery.

In the meantime, while working on other tests related to $SUBJECT and the
current consensus, I was wondering if a new file would be a better place anyway.