Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Make standby servercontinuously retry restoring the next WAL

From: Aidan Van Dyk <aidan(at)highrise(dot)ca>
To: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
Cc: Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>,PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Make standby servercontinuously retry restoring the next WAL
Date: 2010-02-10 13:45:00
Message-ID: 20100210134500.GM3670@oak.highrise.ca (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-committerspgsql-docspgsql-hackers
* Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> [100210 02:33]:
 
> Hmm, so after running restore_command, check the file size and if it's
> too short, treat it the same as if restore_command returned non-zero?
> And it will be retried on the next iteration. Works for me, though OTOH
> it will then fail to complain about a genuinely WAL file that's
> truncated for some reason. I guess there's no way around that, even if
> you have a script as restore_command that does the file size check, it
> will have the same problem.

But isn't this something every current PITR archive already "works
around"...  Everybody doing PITR archives already know the importance of
making the *appearance* of the WAL filename in the archive atomic.

Don't docs warn about plain cp not being atomic and allowing "short"
files to appear in the archive... 

I'm not sure why "streaming recovery" suddenly changes the requirements...

a.

-- 
Aidan Van Dyk                                             Create like a god,
aidan(at)highrise(dot)ca                                       command like a king,
http://www.highrise.ca/                                   work like a slave.

In response to

Responses

pgsql-docs by date

Next:From: Heikki LinnakangasDate: 2010-02-10 16:53:34
Subject: Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Make standby server continuously retry restoring the next WAL
Previous:From: Fujii MasaoDate: 2010-02-10 09:19:01
Subject: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Make standby server continuously retry restoring the next WAL

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Leonardo FDate: 2010-02-10 14:02:46
Subject: Re: I: About "Our CLUSTER implementation is pessimal" patch
Previous:From: Robert HaasDate: 2010-02-10 13:26:45
Subject: Re: Some belated patch review for "Buffers" explain analyze patch

pgsql-committers by date

Next:From: Heikki LinnakangasDate: 2010-02-10 16:53:34
Subject: Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Make standby server continuously retry restoring the next WAL
Previous:From: Fujii MasaoDate: 2010-02-10 09:19:01
Subject: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Make standby server continuously retry restoring the next WAL

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group