Date: Sat, 27 Mar 2021 11:23:16 -0300
From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
To: Paul Guo <guopa@vmware.com>
Cc: Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota.ntt@gmail.com>,
	Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com>,
	Anastasia Lubennikova <a.lubennikova@postgrespro.ru>,
	"Asim Praveen (Pivotal)" <apraveen@pivotal.io>,
	"Lei Wang (Pivotal)" <leiwang@pivotal.io>,
	"thomas.munro@gmail.com" <thomas.munro@gmail.com>,
	"horiguchi.kyotaro@lab.ntt.co.jp" <horiguchi.kyotaro@lab.ntt.co.jp>,
	"pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org" <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: standby recovery fails (tablespace related) (tentative patch and
 discussion)
Message-ID: <20210327142316.GA32517@alvherre.pgsql>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <29C02691-6F05-422F-AB13-2B004D60F4CF@vmware.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20210327142316.GA32517%40alvherre.pgsql>
Precedence: bulk

On 2021-Jan-27, Paul Guo wrote:

> Here is a git diff against the previous patch. I’ll send out the new
> rebased patches after the consensus is reached.

Hmm, can you post a rebased set, where the points under discussion
are marked in XXX comments explaining what the issue is?  This thread is
long and old ago that it's pretty hard to navigate the whole thing in
order to find out exactly what is being questioned.

I think 0004 can be pushed without further ado, since it's a clear and
simple fix.  0001 needs a comment about the new parameter in
RecursiveCopy's POD documentation.

As I understand, this is a backpatchable bug-fix.

-- 
Álvaro Herrera                            39°49'30"S 73°17'W