On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 11:52 AM Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota....@gmail.com> wrote: > > At Wed, 17 Jun 2020 21:37:55 +0900, Fujii Masao <masao.fu...@oss.nttdata.com> > wrote in > > On 2020/06/15 16:35, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote: > > Isn't it better to use 1 as the second argument of the above, > > in order to address the issue that I reported upthread? > > Otherwise, the WAL file name that pg_walfile_name(min_safe_lsn) > > returns > > would be confusing. > > Mmm. pg_walfile_name seems too specialize to > pg_stop_backup(). (pg_walfile_name_offset() returns wrong result for > segment boundaries.) I'm not willing to do that only to follow such > suspicious(?) specification, but surely it would practically be better > doing that. Please find the attached first patch. >
It is a little unclear to me how this or any proposed patch will solve the original problem reported by Fujii-San? Basically, the problem arises because we don't have an interlock between when the checkpoint removes the WAL segment and the view tries to acquire the same. Am, I missing something? -- With Regards, Amit Kapila. EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
