| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>, Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, "Bossart, Nathan" <bossartn(at)amazon(dot)com>, Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Avoid erroring out when unable to remove or parse logical rewrite files to save checkpoint work |
| Date: | 2022-08-09 03:27:17 |
| Message-ID: | 767221.1660015637@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
I wrote:
> Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> The only hunk I'm having second thoughts about is the following, which
>> makes unexpected stray files break checkpoints:
> Sounds like a pretty bad idea. What's the upside?
Actually, having now read the patch, I don't think there is any
part of 0002 that is a good idea. It's blithely removing the
comments that explain why the existing coding is the way it is,
and not providing a shred of justification for making checkpoints
more brittle.
I have not tried to analyze the error-handling properties of 0001,
but if it's being equally cavalier then it shouldn't be committed
either. Most of this behavior is the result of decades of hard-won
experience; discarding it because it doesn't fit conveniently
into some refactoring plan isn't smart.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Nathan Bossart | 2022-08-09 03:29:15 | Re: out of date comment in commit_ts.c |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2022-08-09 03:17:30 | Re: Avoid erroring out when unable to remove or parse logical rewrite files to save checkpoint work |