Horton

Re: remove more archiving overhead

David Steele <david@pgmasters.net>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: David Steele <david@pgmasters.net>
To: Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota.ntt@gmail.com>, nathandbossart@gmail.com
Cc: robertmhaas@gmail.com, masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Date: 2022-07-08T12:20:09Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
On 7/7/22 21:56, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
> At Thu, 7 Jul 2022 15:07:16 -0700, Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com> wrote in
>> Here's an updated patch.
> 
> Thinking RFC'ish, the meaning of "may" and "must" is significant in
> this description.  On the other hand it uses both "may" and "can" but
> I thinkthat their difference is not significant or "can" there is
> somewhat confusing.  I think the "can" should be "may" here.

+1.

> And since "must" is emphasized, doesn't "may" also needs emphasis?

I think emphasis only on must is fine.

Nathan, I don't see the language about being sure to persist to storage 
here?

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.