On Mon, Apr 27, 2026 at 10:52 AM Michael Paquier <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 24, 2026 at 10:08:04PM +0900, Fujii Masao wrote: > > In the master, when the following two recovery targets are specified, > > the recovery target assign hook detects that multiple targets were given > > and reports an error. With the patch, however, the same settings do not > > raise an error, recoveryTarget is set to RECOVERY_TARGET_UNSET, and > > recovery unexpectedly proceeds with no target. Could this be a bug > > in the patch? > > > > recovery_target_xid = '9999' > > recovery_target_time = '' > > Don't think so. You are specifying for recovery_target_time the same > thing as the default, as in "I don't know and do nothing about the > time". Why would it matter to make the difference between a default > value set and what's stored by default if nothing is set in this case?
With those settings, how should recovery behave? I would expect it to behave as in master, i.e., detect that multiple targets were specified and report an error. Alternatively, it might be OK for me to proceed with recovery_target_xid = '9999' and ignore recovery_target_time = '', since that matches the default. With the proposed patch, however, both settings are ignored and recovery starts with no target. That seems unexpected to me. > +1 for reworking that on HEAD, at least. I was thinking the same. +1 Regards, -- Fujii Masao
