Re: Memory leak with XLogFileCopy since de768844 (WAL file with .partial)

From: Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Memory leak with XLogFileCopy since de768844 (WAL file with .partial)
Date: 2015-07-01 01:58:12
Message-ID: CAHGQGwF-YYT5k=xosiYXZ=UDQhQcXP8i9TS0_rf9-4jYEQZDYQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 10:09 AM, Michael Paquier
<michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 6:25 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>> I'm still not sure if I should've just reverted that refactoring, to make
>> XLogFileCopy() look the same in master and back-branches, which makes
>> back-patching easier, or keep the refactoring, because it makes the code
>> slightly nicer. But the current situation is the worst of both worlds: the
>> interface of XLogFileCopy() is no better than it used to be, but it's
>> different enough to cause merge conflicts. At this point, it's probably best
>> to revert the code to look the same as in 9.4.
>
> That's a valid concern. What about the attached then? I think that it
> is still good to keep upto to copy only data up to the switch point at
> recovery exit. InstallXLogFileSegment() changes a bit as well because
> of its modifications of arguments.

Applied. Thanks!

Regards,

--
Fujii Masao

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael Paquier 2015-07-01 02:06:51 Re: Memory leak with XLogFileCopy since de768844 (WAL file with .partial)
Previous Message Peter Eisentraut 2015-07-01 01:33:28 Re: pg_basebackup and replication slots