From: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com> |
Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jehan-Guillaume de Rorthais <jgdr(at)dalibo(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: BUG: *FF WALs under 9.2 (WAS: .ready files appearing on slaves) |
Date: | 2014-10-23 12:23:08 |
Message-ID: | CAHGQGwF0QhH7mm764C1XmTxw161iVCRLRLgCnwTiABk3UXhkZg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 8:45 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
<hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com> wrote:
> On 10/23/2014 01:25 PM, Michael Paquier wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 10:09 AM, Heikki Linnakangas <
>> hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 10/23/2014 08:59 AM, Fujii Masao wrote:
>>> Sounds reasonable, for back-branches. Although I'm still worried we might
>>> miss some corner-case unless we go with a more wholesale solution.
>>>
>>
>> Don't really want to be the intruder here, but isn't that the simple patch
>> attached?
>
>
> That's not right. Should check *after* the write if the segment was
> completed, and close it if so. Like the attached.
Looks good to me. WalReceiverMain has almost the same code as
what XLogWalRcvFileClose does. So we can refactor that.
>> There is still a small window between XLogWalRcvFlush and
>> XLogArchiveForceDone in XLogWalRcvWrite if the standby crashes exactly
>> between them.
>
>
> Yeah. I think we can live with that.
Yes.
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Fujii Masao | 2014-10-23 12:34:07 | Re: BUG: *FF WALs under 9.2 (WAS: .ready files appearing on slaves) |
Previous Message | Fujii Masao | 2014-10-23 11:55:35 | Re: BUG: *FF WALs under 9.2 (WAS: .ready files appearing on slaves) |