On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 8:31 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
<horiguchi.kyot...@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote:
>> +# Take a second backup of the standby while the master is offline.
>> +$node_master->stop;
>> +$node_standby_1->backup('my_backup_2');
>> +$node_master->start;
>
> I'm not sure that adding the test case for a particular bug like
> this is appropriate. But it would be acceptable because it
> doesn't take long time and it is separate from standard checks.We already take a backup from a standby when master is connected, it should not cost much in terms of time. > It seems to me that we could more agressively advance the > minRecoveryPoint (but must not let it go too far..), but it is > right for it to aim a bit smaller than the ideal location. It may be risky to propose such a change for a backpatch. Anyway, in any case there is no guarantee that when using the low-level backup routines pg_start/stop_backup with a custom backup method the minimum recovery point will be correct.. pg_basebackup does that a bit more carefully if I recall correctly (too lazy to look at the code now :)). -- Michael -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
