Re: Use durable_unlink for .ready and .done files for WAL segment removal

From: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
To: Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>
Cc: bossartn(at)amazon(dot)com, 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 22:53:20
Message-ID: 20181206225320.GK2407@paquier.xyz
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

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.
--
Michael

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael Paquier 2018-12-06 22:56:36 Re: psql display of foreign keys
Previous Message Michael Paquier 2018-12-06 22:51:24 Re: Hint and detail punctuation