Hi, On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 9:22 PM, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >> If you delete history file and all the WAL for timeline 6, yeah, nothing >> stops it from being reused. It will work just fine, as if it never >> existed. If you still have the history file and WAL for the old timeline >> 6 lying around somewhere else like an older offsite backup, it's easy >> for the administrator to get confused, but there isn't much we can do >> about that. > > ehem, "It will work fine" isn't correct, as Fujii-san observes.
Yes. In the case which I described, 6 is treated as timeline newer than 7. At least, this is against the current premise that timeline IDs must be in increasing sequence. > Let's document that timeline files should not be deleted from the > archive iff there exists a base backup made during a lower numbered > timeline. Agreed. Regards, -- Fujii Masao NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION NTT Open Source Software Center -- Sent via pgsql-bugs mailing list (pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-bugs
