Horton

Re: Don't choke on files that are removed while pg_rewind runs.

Daniel Gustafsson <daniel@yesql.se>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Daniel Gustafsson <daniel@yesql.se>
To: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
Cc: Masahiko Sawada <masahiko.sawada@2ndquadrant.com>, Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakangas@iki.fi>, Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com>
Date: 2020-07-14T10:18:41Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
> On 13 Jul 2020, at 14:18, Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote:

> That sounds like a good idea with an extra qual in the first part of
> the inner CTE, if coupled with a check to make sure that we never
> get a NULL result.  Now there is IMO an argument to not complicate
> more this query as it is not like a lot of tuples would get filtered
> out anyway because of a NULL set of values?  I don't have strong
> feelings for one approach or the other, but if I were to choose, I
> would just let the code as-is, without the change in the CTE.

I don't have strong opinions either, both approaches will work, so feel free to
go ahead with the proposed change.

cheers ./daniel

Commits

  1. Fix handling of missing files when using pg_rewind with online source

  2. Don't choke on files that are removed while pg_rewind runs.