Re: archive status ".ready" files may be created too early

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Bossart, Nathan
Тема Re: archive status ".ready" files may be created too early
Дата
Msg-id A619E76E-FA05-43D3-B888-13101E4E5305@amazon.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: archive status ".ready" files may be created too early  ("alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org" <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>)
Ответы Re: archive status ".ready" files may be created too early  ("alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org" <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>)
Список pgsql-hackers
On 8/23/21, 8:50 AM, "alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org" <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> wrote:
> ... while reading the resulting code after backpatching to all branches,
> I realized that if there are no registrations whatsoever, then archiving
> won't do anything, which surely is the wrong thing to do.  The correct
> behavior should be "if there are no registrations, then *all* flushed
> segments can be notified".

Hm.  My expectation would be that if there are no registrations, we
cannot create .ready files for the flushed segments.  The scenario
where I can see that happening is when a record gets flushed to disk
prior to registration.  In that case, we'll still eventually register
the record and wake up the WAL writer process, which will take care of
creating the .ready files that were missed earlier.  Is there another
case you are thinking of where we could miss registration for a cross-
segment record altogether?

Nathan


В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Chapman Flack
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Mark all GUC variable as PGDLLIMPORT
Следующее
От: "alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org"
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: archive status ".ready" files may be created too early