| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Julien Rouhaud <julien(dot)rouhaud(at)dalibo(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Brightwell, Adam" <adam(dot)brightwell(at)crunchydatasolutions(dot)com>, Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com>, Gilles Darold <gilles(dot)darold(at)dalibo(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [TODO] Track number of files ready to be archived in pg_stat_archiver |
| Date: | 2014-12-13 15:08:18 |
| Message-ID: | CAB7nPqT96Mm2O8DQp0ARCxomriT8w=OYwh=N5GhWh+-_UqLLCw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, Dec 13, 2014 at 11:53 PM, Julien Rouhaud
<julien(dot)rouhaud(at)dalibo(dot)com> wrote:
> I agree with you about the problems of the v2 patch I originally sent.
> I think this v3 is the right way of keeping track of .ready files, so
> it's ok for me. The v3 also still applies well on current head.
Simon got a good point mentioning that we can currently estimate the
number of files to be archived with the information that we have now
as the logic in the archiver is made as such. This information would
still be useful for a node freshly promoted that needs to promote a
bunch of files btw... But now there are as well discussions about
having a node only archive WAL files it produces, aka a master
archiving only WAL files on its current timeline, so we wouldn't
really need this patch if that's done.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2014-12-13 15:29:29 | Re: Status of CF 2014-10 and upcoming 2014-12 |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2014-12-13 15:00:21 | Status of CF 2014-10 and upcoming 2014-12 |