Re: Review for GetWALAvailability()

From: Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Review for GetWALAvailability()
Date: 2020-06-25 03:34:16
Message-ID: 17a69cfe-f1c1-a416-ee25-ae15427c69eb@oss.nttdata.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2020/06/25 3:27, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Thanks for those corrections.
>
> I have pushed this. I think all problems Masao-san reported have been
> dealt with, so we're done here.

Sorry for my late to reply here...

Thanks for committing the patch and improving the feature!

/*
* Find the oldest extant segment file. We get 1 until checkpoint removes
* the first WAL segment file since startup, which causes the status being
* wrong under certain abnormal conditions but that doesn't actually harm.
*/
oldestSeg = XLogGetLastRemovedSegno() + 1;

I see the point of the above comment, but this can cause wal_status to be
changed from "lost" to "unreserved" after the server restart. Isn't this
really confusing? At least it seems better to document that behavior.

Or if we *can ensure* that the slot with invalidated_at set always means
"lost" slot, we can judge that wal_status is "lost" without using fragile
XLogGetLastRemovedSegno(). Thought?

Or XLogGetLastRemovedSegno() should be fixed so that it returns valid
value even after the restart?

Regards,

--
Fujii Masao
Advanced Computing Technology Center
Research and Development Headquarters
NTT DATA CORPORATION

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alvaro Herrera 2020-06-25 03:57:18 Re: Review for GetWALAvailability()
Previous Message Bharath Rupireddy 2020-06-25 03:00:14 Re: Parallel copy