| From: | David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>, Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: remove more archiving overhead |
| Date: | 2022-07-07 14:46:23 |
| Message-ID: | 17147b74-5465-9a7a-ae27-305d1200482c@pgmasters.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 7/7/22 10:37, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 7, 2022 at 10:03 AM Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com> wrote:
>> Thanks for updating the patch. It looks good to me.
>> Barring any objection, I'm thinking to commit it.
>
> I don't object, but I just started to wonder whether the need to
> handle re-archiving of the same file cleanly is as well-documented as
> it ought to be.
+1, but I don't think that needs to stand in the way of this patch,
which looks sensible to me as-is. I think that's what you meant, but
just wanted to be sure.
There are plenty of ways that already-archived WAL might get archived
again and this is just one of them.
Thoughts, Nathan?
Regards,
-David
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Fujii Masao | 2022-07-07 14:58:05 | Re: Backup command and functions can cause assertion failure and segmentation fault |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2022-07-07 14:37:05 | Re: remove more archiving overhead |