On Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 10:16:40AM -0700, Andres Freund wrote: > Hi, > > On 2021-03-26 18:20:14 +0900, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote: > > This is because XLogSendPhysical detects removal of the wal segment > > currently reading by shutdown checkpoint. However, there' no fear of > > overwriting of WAL segments at the time. > > > > So I think we can omit the call to CheckXLogRemoved() while > > MyWalSnd->state is WALSNDSTTE_STOPPING because the state comes after > > the shutdown checkpoint completes. > > > > Of course that doesn't help if walsender was running two segments > > behind. There still could be a small window for the failure. But it's > > a great help to save the case of just 1 segment behind. > > -1. This seems like a bandaid to make a broken configuration work a tiny > bit better, without actually being meaningfully better.
Agreed. Still, wouldn't it be better to avoid such configurations and protect a bit things with a check on the new value? -- Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
