On Thu, Mar 01, 2018 at 07:49:06AM +0000, Tsunakawa, Takayuki wrote: > It's a regret that Chen's patch, which limits the WAL to be copied, is > not committed yet. It looks good to be ready for committer.
The message I sent provides reasons about why it should not be integrated. Particularly since the prior last checkpoint has been removed in v11, there is always going to be a whole in WAL segments as you need to create a checkpoint on the ex-standby after it has been promoted so as its control file data is correctly reflected on disk. > > > Related to this, shouldn't pg_rewind avoid copying more files and > > > directories like pg_basebackup? Currently, pg_rewind doesn't copy > > > postmaster.pid, postmaster.opts, and temporary files/directories > > > (pg_sql_tmp/). > > > > Yes, it should not copy those files. I have a patch in the current CF to > > do that: > > https://commitfest.postgresql.org/17/1507/ > > Wow, what a great patch. I think I should look at it. But I'm afraid > it won't be backpatched because it's big... That's a new feature. This won't get backpatch'ed anyway. > Even with your patch and Chen's one, my small patch is probably > necessary to avoid leaving 0-byte or half-baked files. I'm not sure > whether those strangely sized files would cause actual trouble, but > maybe it would be healthy to try to clean things up as much as > possible. (files in pg_twophase/ might emit WARNING messages, garbage > server log files might make the DBA worried, etc.; yes, these may be > just FUD.) Yeah, I'd like to double-check what you are proposing here anyway. Sorry but I do not have an opinion about what you have sent yet :( The only thing I am sure of though is that for HEAD not copying files from pg_wal from the origin is the way to do it. For back-branches that's another story. -- Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
