On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 03:44:10PM +0100, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2015-10-24 22:07:00 -0400, Noah Misch wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 07:57:27PM +0200, Andres Freund wrote: > > > On 2015-09-22 13:38:58 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > > > > - If SlruDeleteSegment fails in unlink(), shouldn't we at the very > > > > least log a message? If that file is still there when we loop back > > > > around, it's going to cause a failure, I think. > > > > > > The existing unlink() call doesn't, that's the only reason I didn't add > > > a message there. I'm fine with adding a (LOG or WARNING?) message. > > Note that I didn't add the warning after all, as it'd be too noisy > during repeated replay, as all the files would already be gone. We could > only emit it when the error is not ENOFILE, if people prefer that. > > > > Unlinking old pg_clog files is strictly an optimization. If you were to > > comment out every unlink() call in slru.c, the only ill effect on CLOG is > > the > > waste of disk space. Is the same true of MultiXact? > > Well, multixacts are a lot larger than the other SLRUs, I think that > makes some sort of difference.
That helps; thanks. Your design seems good. I've located only insipid defects. I propose to save some time by writing a patch series eliminating them, which you could hopefully review. Does that sound good? -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
