Horton

Re: remove more archiving overhead

Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
To: 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: 2022-07-07T14:37:05Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
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.

-- 
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com

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.