On 01/09/2014 12:05 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> Actually, why is the partially-filled 000000010000000000000002 file
> archived in the first place? Looking at the code, it's been like that
> forever, but it seems like a bad idea. If the original server is still
> up and running, and writing more data to that file, what will happen is
> that when the original server later tries to archive it, it will fail
> because the partial version of the file is already in the archive. Or
> worse, the partial version overwrites a previously archived more
> complete version.
Oh! This explains some transient errors I've seen.
> Wouldn't it be better to not archive the old segment, and instead switch
> to a new segment after writing the end-of-recovery checkpoint, so that
> the segment on the new timeline is archived sooner?
It would be better to zero-fill and switch segments, yes. We should
NEVER be in a position of archiving two different versions of the same
segment.
--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://pgexperts.com
