| From: | Anastasia Lubennikova <a(dot)lubennikova(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> |
|---|---|
| To: | Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>, hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi |
| Cc: | matsumura(dot)ryo(at)fujitsu(dot)com, bossartn(at)amazon(dot)com, masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: archive status ".ready" files may be created too early |
| Date: | 2020-11-29 19:16:58 |
| Message-ID: | 6009933f-5b21-db6a-a23a-14a414aba94d@postgrespro.ru |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 14.10.2020 03:06, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
> The patch includes a fix for primary->standby case. But I'm not sure
> we can do that in the cascaded case. A standby is not aware of the
> structure of a WAL blob and has no idea of up-to-where to send the
> received blobs. However, if we can rely on the behavior of CopyData
> that we always receive a blob as a whole sent from the sender at once,
> the cascaded standbys are free from the trouble (as far as the
> cascaded-standby doesn't crash just before writing the last-half of a
> record into pg_wal and after archiving the last full-segment, which
> seems unlikely.).
>
> regards.
>
Status update for a commitfest entry.
This entry was "Waiting on author" during this CF. As I see, the latest
message contains new version of the patch.
Does it need more work? Are you going to continue working on it?
--
Anastasia Lubennikova
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
The Russian Postgres Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Anastasia Lubennikova | 2020-11-29 19:24:13 | Re: proposal: function pg_setting_value_split() to parse shared_preload_libraries etc. |
| Previous Message | Anastasia Lubennikova | 2020-11-29 19:12:53 | Re: pgbench - test whether a variable exists |