Hi, On Fri, 25 Sept 2026 at 20:54, Ayush Tiwari <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, 27 Aug 2026 at 17:48, Ayush Tiwari <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > On Mon, 17 Aug 2026 at 05:08, Bharath Rupireddy > > <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> Hi, > >> > >> On Sun, Aug 16, 2026 at 8:09 AM Ayush Tiwari > >> <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > > >> > Upon thinking more, I've removed the force option for now. > >> > We can revisit/add it if and when need be, adding something like that > >> > is easier than removing it later. > >> > > >> > v6 attached. Thoughts? > >> > >> Thanks for the new patch. It mostly looks good to me with a few minor > >> comments (at the end). I marked the CF entry as RfC > >> (https://commitfest.postgresql.org/patch/7052/). pgindent, make check, > >> make check-world with both debug and release builds run fine. I did > >> the following two tests to ensure it works as expected. > >> > >> 1/ Concurrent WAL file creation. A TAP test with an injection point > >> where one backend is paused right before preallocating a segment while > >> another creates it first with an INSERT query. The backend that > >> preallocates creates fewer files than requested, returns without > >> error, and the file ends up created only once. > >> > >> 2/ Preallocated 100 WAL files on the primary, then failed over to the > >> standby and ran pg_rewind on the old primary to bring it back as a > >> standby of the newly promoted primary. pg_rewind removed them [1] > >> since they are beyond the divergence point. > >> > >> A few minor comments: > >> > >> 1/ > >> + nsegsadded = PreallocNXlogFiles(nsegs); > >> + > >> + PG_RETURN_INT64(nsegsadded); > >> > >> It might be good to return the WAL file names that were created for > >> the record, but I don't see any strong use for that now. We can add it > >> in future if needed. > >> > >> 2/ > >> + if (PG_ARGISNULL(0)) > >> + bytes = (int64) min_wal_size_mb * 1024 * 1024; > >> + else > >> + { > >> + bytes = PG_GETARG_INT64(0); > >> + > >> + if (bytes < 0) > >> + ereport(ERROR, > >> + (errcode(ERRCODE_NUMERIC_VALUE_OUT_OF_RANGE), > >> + errmsg("number of bytes to preallocate must not be negative"))); > >> + } > >> + > >> > >> I'm fine with this, however, I will leave it to others and the > >> committer to decide whether to auto-calculate from min_wal_size when > >> user input is NULL. > >> > >> [1] > >> pg_rewind: pg_wal/00000001000000000000006F (REMOVE) > >> pg_rewind: pg_wal/00000001000000000000006E (REMOVE) > >> ... > >> ... > >> pg_rewind: pg_wal/00000001000000000000000E (REMOVE) > >> pg_rewind: pg_wal/00000001000000000000000D (REMOVE) > >> > >
Rebased. Regards, Ayush
v9-0001-Add-pg_wal_preallocate-to-eagerly-create-future-WAL-segments.patch
Description: Binary data
