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

From: "Bossart, Nathan" <bossartn(at)amazon(dot)com>
To: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
Cc: Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, "pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Use durable_unlink for .ready and .done files for WAL segment removal
Date: 2018-11-29 15:00:42
Message-ID: 6AD08B49-6894-4A8E-9FEA-42A0FA864BED@amazon.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 11/27/18, 3:53 PM, "Michael Paquier" <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 09:49:29PM +0000, Bossart, Nathan wrote:
>> That sounds good to me. I was actually thinking of using the same
>> retry counter that we use for pgarch_archiveXlog(), but on second
>> thought, it is probably better to have two independent retry counters
>> for these two unrelated operations.
>
> What I had in mind was two different variables if what I wrote was
> unclear, possibly with the same value, as archiving failure and failure
> with orphan file removals are two different concepts.

+1

Nathan

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Dmitry Dolgov 2018-11-29 15:21:21 Re: Global snapshots
Previous Message Nikhil Sontakke 2018-11-29 14:40:34 Re: [HACKERS] logical decoding of two-phase transactions