On Thu, Jul 07, 2022 at 10:46:23AM -0400, David Steele wrote: > On 7/7/22 10:37, Robert Haas wrote: >> On Thu, Jul 7, 2022 at 10:03 AM Fujii Masao <masao.fu...@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. > > +1, but I don't think that needs to stand in the way of this patch, which > looks sensible to me as-is. I think that's what you meant, but just wanted > to be sure.
Yeah, this seems like something that should be documented. I can pick this up. I believe this is an existing problem, but this patch could make it more likely. > There are plenty of ways that already-archived WAL might get archived again > and this is just one of them. What are some of the others? I was aware of the case that was fixed in ff9f111, where we might try to re-archive a file with different contents, but I'm curious what other ways you've seen this happen. -- Nathan Bossart Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
