Re: Forcing current WAL file to be archived

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)skype(dot)net>
Subject: Re: Forcing current WAL file to be archived
Date: 2006-08-09 14:04:48
Message-ID: 19673.1155132288@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches

Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> Something Hannu wrote has just reminded me that
> pg_current_xlog_location() returns the current Insert pointer rather
> than the current Write pointer.
> That would not be useful for streaming xlog records would it?

Good point.

> Methinks it should be the Write pointer all of the time, since I can't
> think of a valid reason for wanting to know where the Insert pointer is
> *before* we've written to the xlog file. Having it be the Insert pointer
> could lead to some errors.

However the start/stop_backup functions return the Insert pointer.
I can see scripts getting confused if pg_current_xlog_location reports
something less than what they just got from pg_stop_backup.

Is there value in exposing both pointers? (Maybe not, it'll just cause
confusion probably.)

Another option is to have pg_current_xlog_location force a write (but
not fsync) as far as the Insert pointer it's about to return. This
would eliminate any issues about inconsistency between results, but
perhaps there's too much performance penalty.

I'm not necessarily against your suggestion, just trying to be sure
we've thought about all the options.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message korryd@enterprisedb.com 2006-08-09 14:20:31 Re: 8.2 features status
Previous Message Richard Huxton 2006-08-09 14:01:13 Re: proposal for PL packages for 8.3.

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2006-08-09 14:57:38 Re: Forcing current WAL file to be archived
Previous Message Hannu Krosing 2006-08-09 13:52:25 Re: Forcing current WAL file to be archived