On 12/29/21, 3:11 PM, "Tom Lane" wrote:
> "Bossart, Nathan" writes:
>> This crossed my mind, too. I also think one of the arrays can be
>> eliminated in favor of just using the heap (after rebuilding with a
>> reversed comparator). Here is a minimally-tested patch that
>> demonstrates what I'm
"Bossart, Nathan" writes:
> On 12/29/21, 1:04 PM, "Tom Lane" wrote:
>> While we're here, I wonder if we ought to get rid of the static-ness of
>> these arrays. I realize that they're only eating a few kB, but they're
>> doing so in every postgres process, when they'll only be used in the
>> arch
"Bossart, Nathan" writes:
> I bet this was a simple mistake in beb4e9b.
> -static char arch_filenames[NUM_FILES_PER_DIRECTORY_SCAN][MAX_XFN_CHARS];
> +static char arch_filenames[NUM_FILES_PER_DIRECTORY_SCAN][MAX_XFN_CHARS + 1];
Hm, yeah, that looks like a pretty obvious bug.
While we're here, I
On 12/29/21, 12:22 PM, "Thomas Munro" wrote:
> Isn't this a corrupted pathname?
>
> 2021-12-29 03:39:55.708 CST [79851:1] WARNING: removal of orphan
> archive status file
> "pg_wal/archive_status/00010003.0028.backup00010004.ready"
> failed too many times, will
