| From: | "Bossart, Nathan" <bossartn(at)amazon(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Dipesh Pandit <dipesh(dot)pandit(at)gmail(dot)com>, Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jeevan Ladhe <jeevan(dot)ladhe(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, "Andres Freund" <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Hannu Krosing <hannuk(at)google(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: .ready and .done files considered harmful |
| Date: | 2021-08-16 05:05:01 |
| Message-ID: | 05564140-9567-49FA-AFB5-252F5868BBCA@amazon.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 8/15/21, 9:52 PM, "Bossart, Nathan" <bossartn(at)amazon(dot)com> wrote:
> + * Perform a full directory scan to identify the next log segment. There
> + * may be one of the following scenarios which may require us to perform a
> + * full directory scan.
> ...
> + * - The next anticipated log segment is not available.
>
> I wonder if we really need to perform a directory scan in this case.
> Unless there are other cases where the .ready files are created out of
> order, I think this just causes an unnecessary directory scan every
> time the archiver catches up.
Thinking further, I suppose this is necessary for when lastSegNo gets
reset after processing an out-of-order .ready file.
Nathan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2021-08-16 05:21:43 | Re: Skipping logical replication transactions on subscriber side |
| Previous Message | Bossart, Nathan | 2021-08-16 04:51:23 | Re: .ready and .done files considered harmful |