| From: | Andrey Borodin <x4mmm(at)yandex-team(dot)ru> |
|---|---|
| To: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
| Cc: | David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net>, hubert depesz lubaczewski <depesz(at)depesz(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers mailing list <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Would it be possible to have parallel archiving? |
| Date: | 2018-08-28 21:04:23 |
| Message-ID: | 22D9C4DD-54F2-435F-8022-E3D4F7D3A9B2@yandex-team.ru |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> 28 авг. 2018 г., в 17:41, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> написал(а):
>
> Pushing files which are indicated by archive status as being ready is
> absolutely an entirely different thing from whacking around the status
> files themselves which PG is managing itself.
I disagree.
Returning archive_command exit code as a result of prior reading archive_status is not safe.
"absolutely an entirely different thing" is a speculation just like "jumping out of 5th floor is safer than jumping out 10th". If archive is not to be monitored properly - do not whack with archive_status at all. pgBackRest is no safer that WAL-G in this aspect. They are prone to the same conditions, changing behavior of archive_status will affect them both.
I'm aware of the issue and monitor PG changes in this aspect. I do not pretend that there cannot be any problem at all and this method will stay safe forever. But now it is.
Best regards, Andrey Borodin.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2018-08-28 21:12:43 | some pg_dump query code simplification |
| Previous Message | Jeremy Finzel | 2018-08-28 20:46:43 | Re: Some pgq table rewrite incompatibility with logical decoding? |