Feedback-ID: ia2694551:Fastmail
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2022 13:20:26 +0200
From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
To: Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>
Cc: Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota.ntt@gmail.com>,
	Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com>,
	Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>,
	Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>,
	Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123@gmail.com>,
	pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: standby recovery fails (tablespace related) (tentative patch and
 discussion)
Message-ID: <20220721112026.xvqhrhtvsev47keo@alvherre.pgsql>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: 
 <CA+hUKGLBdbD9WCLr6YjdbrsRWo0SWdMoV96v6WEJAQZuKKWMjg@mail.gmail.com>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20220721112026.xvqhrhtvsev47keo%40alvherre.pgsql>
Precedence: bulk

On 2022-Jul-21, Thomas Munro wrote:

> On Thu, Jul 21, 2022 at 11:01 PM Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> wrote:

> > I've got no opinions on this.  I don't like either 1 or 3, so I'm going
> > to add and backpatch a new GUC allow_recovery_tablespaces as the
> > override mechanism.
> >
> > If others disagree with this choice, please speak up.
> 
> Would it help if we back-patched the allow_in_place_tablespaces stuff?
>  I'm not sure how hard/destabilising that would be, but I could take a
> look tomorrow.

Yeah, I think that would reduce cruft.  I'm not sure this is more
against backpatching policy or less, compared to adding a separate
GUC just for this bugfix.

-- 
Álvaro Herrera        Breisgau, Deutschland  —  https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
"The problem with the facetime model is not just that it's demoralizing, but
that the people pretending to work interrupt the ones actually working."
                                                           (Paul Graham)