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
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 |