From: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Julien Rouhaud <julien(dot)rouhaud(at)dalibo(dot)com> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: pg_stat_archiver issue with aborted archiver |
Date: | 2015-06-08 19:23:09 |
Message-ID: | CAHGQGwGOpTnYT5UNhajU2PyWuAKOecasTYhYrBBY=828UKq3PA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 5:17 PM, Julien Rouhaud
<julien(dot)rouhaud(at)dalibo(dot)com> wrote:
> Le 08/06/2015 05:56, Michael Paquier a écrit :
>> On Sun, Jun 7, 2015 at 1:11 AM, Julien Rouhaud
>> <julien(dot)rouhaud(at)dalibo(dot)com> wrote:
>>> I just noticed that if the archiver aborts (for instance if the
>>> archive_command exited with a return code > 127),
>>> pg_stat_archiver won't report those failed attempts. This happens
>>> with both 9.4 and 9.5 branches.
>>>
>>> Please find attached a patch that fix this issue, based on
>>> current head.
>>
>> The current code seems right to me. When the archive command dies
>> because of a signal (exit code > 128), the server should fail
>> immediately with FATAL and should not do any extra processing.
In that case, ISTM that the archiver process dies with FATAL but
the server not. No? Then the archiver is restarted by postmaster.
If my understanding is right, it seems worth applying something like
Julien's patch.
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2015-06-08 19:23:59 | Re: last_analyze/last_vacuum not being updated |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2015-06-08 19:21:34 | Re: [CORE] back-branch multixact fixes & 9.5 alpha/beta: schedule |