Re: archive status ".ready" files may be created too early - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Bossart, Nathan
Subject Re: archive status ".ready" files may be created too early
Date
Msg-id A619E76E-FA05-43D3-B888-13101E4E5305@amazon.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: archive status ".ready" files may be created too early  ("alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org" <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>)
Responses Re: archive status ".ready" files may be created too early  ("alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org" <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>)
List pgsql-hackers
On 8/23/21, 8:50 AM, "alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org" <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> wrote:
> ... while reading the resulting code after backpatching to all branches,
> I realized that if there are no registrations whatsoever, then archiving
> won't do anything, which surely is the wrong thing to do.  The correct
> behavior should be "if there are no registrations, then *all* flushed
> segments can be notified".

Hm.  My expectation would be that if there are no registrations, we
cannot create .ready files for the flushed segments.  The scenario
where I can see that happening is when a record gets flushed to disk
prior to registration.  In that case, we'll still eventually register
the record and wake up the WAL writer process, which will take care of
creating the .ready files that were missed earlier.  Is there another
case you are thinking of where we could miss registration for a cross-
segment record altogether?

Nathan


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Chapman Flack
Date:
Subject: Re: Mark all GUC variable as PGDLLIMPORT
Next
From: "alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org"
Date:
Subject: Re: archive status ".ready" files may be created too early