> Thanks, Nitin. Perhaps it would be a better approach to split the > patch into multiple pieces, with the most relevant PANIC->FATAL > switches and the most critical tests on top of the rest. It would be > nice to get most of that by the end of the release cycle, or a rather > "good" chunk of it.
Thanks for the suggestion, Michael, and apologies for the delay. I had intended to send this sooner, but it took a bit more time. I’m sharing the two patches below. Patch 0001 adjusts the error severity during crash recovery when the checkpoint record referenced by pg_control cannot be located and no backup_label file is present. The error is lowered from PANIC to FATAL. This patch also adds a new TAP test that verifies startup fails with a clear FATAL error. The test is straightforward: it removes the WAL segment containing the checkpoint record and confirms that the server reports the expected error. Patch 0002 adds two TAP tests that exercise similar missing‑WAL scenarios during backup recovery, i.e., when a backup_label file is present: Missing checkpoint WAL segment referenced by backup_label: This test uses an online backup to create a backup_label file, extracts the checkpoint record information from it, removes the corresponding WAL segment, and verifies that the server reports the expected error. Missing redo WAL segment referenced by the checkpoint: In this test, redo and checkpoint records are forced into different WAL segments using injection points. A cold backup is then taken, with an explicit backup_label created in the restored cluster. The WAL segment containing the redo record is removed, and startup is expected to fail with the appropriate error message. Please review and share your feedback. I’m happy to adjust the patches if there are better ways to handle any of these cases, especially the 054_missing_redo_with_backup_label test. Best Regards, Nitin Jadhav Azure Database for PostgreSQL Microsoft On Thu, Feb 19, 2026 at 9:48 AM Michael Paquier <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 19, 2026 at 08:24:02AM +0530, Nitin Jadhav wrote: > > I had a quick look at the existing recovery TAP tests and didn’t > > immediately find a case where simply adding log checks would cover > > these error paths, but I’ll double‑check once more before sending the > > patch. I’ll work on this and share the patch soon. > > Thanks, Nitin. Perhaps it would be a better approach to split the > patch into multiple pieces, with the most relevant PANIC->FATAL > switches and the most critical tests on top of the rest. It would be > nice to get most of that by the end of the release cycle, or a rather > "good" chunk of it. > -- > Michael
0002-Add-TAP-tests-for-missing-redo-checkpoint-during-bac.patch
Description: Binary data
0001-Lower-PANIC-to-FATAL-for-missing-checkpoint-error-in.patch
Description: Binary data
