| From: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(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 11:45:07 |
| Message-ID: | 5448EA43.6000204@vmware.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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.
> 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.
- Heikki
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| switch-walend-2.patch | text/x-diff | 2.9 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Fujii Masao | 2014-10-23 11:55:35 | Re: BUG: *FF WALs under 9.2 (WAS: .ready files appearing on slaves) |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2014-10-23 10:25:58 | Re: BUG: *FF WALs under 9.2 (WAS: .ready files appearing on slaves) |