On Thu, 2007-09-27 at 12:07 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> > Dang, me again eh? :-)
> > Well, I'm available now and tomorrow to do any further work required.
>
> Looking back at your original discussion of the bug,
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2007-06/msg00234.php
> I'm wondering why you chose option #3 rather than option #4?
IIRC you rejected #4 here
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-admin/2007-03/msg00237.php
I was raising it again 'cos I thought it sensible, and still do.
#4 is easy enough to implement, so I worked on #3 so we had a choice.
> I still find the proposed patch a bit crufty.
Your coding is always neater than mine, so we need not debate my
cruftiness. There are two parts to the patch as submitted; IIRC the
shorter chunk *may* be cosmetic only - though its too far back for me to
recall with precision.
The main issue is that we send *back* to the archive a file that we just
got from it, which is always wrong. Stopping it from doing that in a
direct manner seems much neater to me. #4 solves another problem
(mentioned in the thread you quote on Admin), so I want that, but I
dislike the circuitous manner in which it solves this problem. We'd need
to document carefully to avoid a future bug there.
I would prefer #3 and #4 together...
-- Simon Riggs 2ndQuadrant http://www.2ndQuadrant.com
