Horton

Re: remove more archiving overhead

David Steele <david@pgmasters.net>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: David Steele <david@pgmasters.net>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com>
Cc: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>, Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota.ntt@gmail.com>, "pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org" <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2022-07-07T14:46:23Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
On 7/7/22 10:37, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 7, 2022 at 10:03 AM Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com> wrote:
>> Thanks for updating the patch. It looks good to me.
>> Barring any objection, I'm thinking to commit it.
> 
> I don't object, but I just started to wonder whether the need to
> handle re-archiving of the same file cleanly is as well-documented as
> it ought to be.

+1, but I don't think that needs to stand in the way of this patch, 
which looks sensible to me as-is. I think that's what you meant, but 
just wanted to be sure.

There are plenty of ways that already-archived WAL might get archived 
again and this is just one of them.

Thoughts, Nathan?

Regards,
-David

Commits

  1. Be more prescriptive in new doc about re-archiving of same WAL file.

  2. doc: Add note about re-archiving of same WAL files in docs.

  3. Reduce overhead of renaming archive status files.