Re: recovery modules

On Thu, Feb 16, 2023 at 01:17:54PM -0800, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2023-02-16 12:15:12 -0800, Nathan Bossart wrote:
>> On Thu, Feb 16, 2023 at 11:29:56AM -0800, Andres Freund wrote:
>> > On 2023-02-15 10:44:07 -0800, Nathan Bossart wrote:
>> >> @@ -144,10 +170,12 @@ basic_archive_configured(void)
>> >>   * Archives one file.
>> >>   */
>> >>  static bool
>> >> -basic_archive_file(const char *file, const char *path)
>> >> +basic_archive_file(ArchiveModuleState *state, const char *file, const char *path)
>> >>  {
>> >>  	sigjmp_buf	local_sigjmp_buf;
>> > 
>> > Not related the things changed here, but this should never have been pushed
>> > down into individual archive modules. There's absolutely no way that we're
>> > going to keep this up2date and working correctly in random archive
>> > modules. And it would break if archive modules are ever called outside of
>> > pgarch.c.
>> 
>> Yeah.  IIRC I did briefly try to avoid this, but the difficulty was that
>> each module will have its own custom cleanup logic.
> 
> It can use PG_TRY/CATCH for that, if the top-level sigsetjmp is in pgarch.c.
> Or you could add a cleanup callback to the API, to be called after the
> top-level cleanup in pgarch.c.

Yeah, that seems workable.

> I'm quite baffled by:
> 		/* Close any files left open by copy_file() or compare_files() */
> 		AtEOSubXact_Files(false, InvalidSubTransactionId, InvalidSubTransactionId);
> 
> in basic_archive_file(). It seems *really* off to call AtEOSubXact_Files()
> completely outside the context of a transaction environment. And it only does
> the thing you want because you pass parameters that aren't actually valid in
> the normal use in AtEOSubXact_Files().  I really don't understand how that's
> supposed to be ok.

Hm.  Should copy_file() and compare_files() have PG_FINALLY blocks that
attempt to close the files instead?  What would you recommend?

-- 
Nathan Bossart
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com