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

Re: Prevent restored WAL files from being archived again Re: Unnecessary WAL archiving after failover

From: Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Prevent restored WAL files from being archived again Re: Unnecessary WAL archiving after failover
Date: 2012-10-02 18:20:46
Message-ID: CAHGQGwFFWDuP2MTOVfOYrzQSG9-GneHgxwRe5CHpyj=W=8-0LQ@mail.gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 3:11 AM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> On 2 October 2012 19:06, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> On Sat, Aug 11, 2012 at 2:19 AM, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>> On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 8:08 AM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>>>> On 29 July 2012 16:01, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Attached patch changes the startup process so that it creates .done file
>>>>> whenever WAL file is successfully restored, whether archive mode is
>>>>> enabled or not. The restored WAL files will not be archived again because
>>>>> of .done file.
>>>>
>>>> The proposed patch works, for archiving only, but I don't like the
>>>> code. It's a partial refactoring of existing code.
>>>>
>>>> I prefer to go for a full re-factoring version for HEAD, and a zero
>>>> refactoring version for 9.2 since we're deep into beta.
>>
>> Isn't it time to push the full re-factoring version to HEAD? If there is no
>> such version yet, what about pushing the zero refactoring version for now?
>
> If you send a rebased patch, I'll review,

Okay. Will do. The patch needs to be revised to correspond with the recent
split of xlog.c.

> but its not high on my radar
> right now unless you can explain why it should be higher.

It may not be high, but I'm just worried that we are likely to forget to
apply that change into HEAD if we postpone it furthermore.

Regards,

-- 
Fujii Masao


In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Peter GeogheganDate: 2012-10-02 18:22:19
Subject: Re: Hash id in pg_stat_statements
Previous:From: Simon RiggsDate: 2012-10-02 18:11:03
Subject: Re: Prevent restored WAL files from being archived again Re: Unnecessary WAL archiving after failover

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