| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
| Cc: | splarv(at)ya(dot)ru, pgsql-docs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Return codes for archive and restore commands |
| Date: | 2018-11-29 03:25:42 |
| Message-ID: | 20181129032542.GL626@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-docs |
On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 09:39:58PM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
> Having discussed this quite a bit lately with David Steele and Magnus,
> it's pretty clear that we need to completely rip out how this works
> today and rewrite it based around an extension model where a background
> worker can start up and essentially take the place of the archiver
> process, with flexibility to jump forward through the WAL stream,
> communicate clearly with other processes, handle failure to do so
> gracefully based on the specific cases, etc.
Hm. When an instance state is in PM_SHUTDOWN_2, the postmaster
explicitely waits for the WAL senders and the archiver to shut down. So
I think that you would need more control regarding the timing a bgworker
should be shut down first to be completely correct.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Stephen Frost | 2018-11-29 03:27:31 | Re: Return codes for archive and restore commands |
| Previous Message | Stephen Frost | 2018-11-29 02:39:58 | Re: Return codes for archive and restore commands |