public inbox for [email protected]
help / color / mirror / Atom feedRe: BUG #19432: recovery fails at invalid checkpoint record
3+ messages / 2 participants
[nested] [flat]
* Re: BUG #19432: recovery fails at invalid checkpoint record
@ 2026-03-13 16:37 Laurenz Albe <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Laurenz Albe @ 2026-03-13 16:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Felix Hamme <[email protected]>; +Cc: [email protected]
On Fri, 2026-03-13 at 09:35 +0100, Felix Hamme wrote:
> Is it safe in general to use mv for wal files? In other words, do the
> currently supported postgres versions run restore_command only once
> per wal file?
As you found out, no...
Yours,
Laurenz Albe
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: BUG #19432: recovery fails at invalid checkpoint record
@ 2026-03-16 13:56 Felix Hamme <[email protected]>
parent: Laurenz Albe <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Felix Hamme @ 2026-03-16 13:56 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Laurenz Albe <[email protected]>; +Cc: [email protected]
Timeline history files can be needed multiple times, ok. My question
was about WAL files only.
I'm tempted to use a restore_command which does cp for history files
and mv for WAL files, to optimize performance and disk usage.
An AI told me that a second restore attempt for the same WAL file
could only happen if recovery is resumed after a crash.
Kind regards
Felix Hamme
On Fri, Mar 13, 2026 at 5:37 PM Laurenz Albe <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 2026-03-13 at 09:35 +0100, Felix Hamme wrote:
> > Is it safe in general to use mv for wal files? In other words, do the
> > currently supported postgres versions run restore_command only once
> > per wal file?
>
> As you found out, no...
>
> Yours,
> Laurenz Albe
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: BUG #19432: recovery fails at invalid checkpoint record
@ 2026-03-16 15:07 Laurenz Albe <[email protected]>
parent: Felix Hamme <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Laurenz Albe @ 2026-03-16 15:07 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Felix Hamme <[email protected]>; +Cc: [email protected]
On Mon, 2026-03-16 at 14:56 +0100, Felix Hamme wrote:
> I'm tempted to use a restore_command which does cp for history files
> and mv for WAL files, to optimize performance and disk usage.
> An AI told me that a second restore attempt for the same WAL file
> could only happen if recovery is resumed after a crash.
Don't do that. Make the restore_command idempotent.
Trying to optimize for storage space often causes problems elsewhere.
Yours,
Laurenz Albe
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2026-03-16 15:07 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2026-03-13 16:37 Re: BUG #19432: recovery fails at invalid checkpoint record Laurenz Albe <[email protected]>
2026-03-16 13:56 ` Felix Hamme <[email protected]>
2026-03-16 15:07 ` Laurenz Albe <[email protected]>
This inbox is served by agora; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox