| From: | "Bossart, Nathan" <bossartn(at)amazon(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Dipesh Pandit <dipesh(dot)pandit(at)gmail(dot)com>, Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jeevan Ladhe <jeevan(dot)ladhe(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, "Andres Freund" <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Hannu Krosing <hannuk(at)google(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: .ready and .done files considered harmful |
| Date: | 2021-09-09 22:24:30 |
| Message-ID: | 81436B91-9A78-4CE1-BCDF-142F32FDF1DE@amazon.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 9/8/21, 10:49 AM, "Dipesh Pandit" <dipesh(dot)pandit(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Updated log level to DEBUG3 and rebased the patch. PFA patch.
Thanks for the new patch.
+ * by checking the availability of next WAL file. "xlogState" specifies the
+ * segment number and timeline ID corresponding to the next WAL file.
"xlogState" probably needs to be updated here.
As noted before [0], I think we need to force a directory scan at the
beginning of pgarch_MainLoop() and when pgarch_ArchiverCopyLoop()
returns before we exit the "while" loop. Else, there's probably a
risk that we skip archiving a file until the next directory scan. IMO
forcing a directory scan at the beginning of pgarch_ArchiverCopyLoop()
is a simpler way to do roughly the same thing. I'm skeptical that
persisting the next-anticipated state between calls to
pgarch_ArchiverCopyLoop() is worth the complexity.
Nathan
[0] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/AC78607B-9DA6-41F4-B253-840D3DD964BF%40amazon.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bossart, Nathan | 2021-09-09 22:30:54 | Re: parallelizing the archiver |
| Previous Message | Bossart, Nathan | 2021-09-09 21:53:22 | Re: Estimating HugePages Requirements? |