| From: | "Bossart, Nathan" <bossartn(at)amazon(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> |
| Cc: | "pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Use durable_unlink for .ready and .done files for WAL segment removal |
| Date: | 2018-12-06 23:18:12 |
| Message-ID: | 397BDCF8-F428-4616-95C3-24251AE32857@amazon.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 12/6/18, 4:54 PM, "Michael Paquier" <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 06, 2018 at 02:43:35PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> Why? A WARNING would be logged if the first unlink() fails, and
>> another, different WARNING would be logged if the subsequent fsync
>> fails. It looks enough to me to make a distinction between both. Now,
>> you may have a point in the fact that we could also live with only using
>> unlink() for this code path, as even on repetitive crashes this would
>> take care of removing orphan archive status files consistently.
>
> After sleeping on that, using plain unlink() makes indeed the most
> sense. Any objections if I move on with that, adding a proper comment
> explaining the choice? I don't plan to finish wrapping this patch today
> but Monday my time anyway.
That seems reasonable to me.
Nathan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2018-12-07 00:06:17 | Re: don't create storage when unnecessary |
| Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2018-12-06 22:59:28 | Re: amcheck verification for GiST |