Re: Broken --dry-run mode in pg_rewind
От | Stephen Frost |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Broken --dry-run mode in pg_rewind |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20150508131106.GV30322@tamriel.snowman.net обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Broken --dry-run mode in pg_rewind (Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi>) |
Ответы |
Re: Broken --dry-run mode in pg_rewind
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
* Heikki Linnakangas (hlinnaka@iki.fi) wrote: > On 05/08/2015 03:39 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > >On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 9:34 PM, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi> wrote: > >>On 05/08/2015 03:25 PM, Vladimir Borodin wrote: > >>>Seems, that pg_rewind does not account --dry-run option properly. A simple > >>>fix > >>>for that is attached. > >> > >> > >>No, the --dry-run takes effect later. It performs all the actions it > >>normally would, including reading files from the source, except for actually > >>writing anything in the target. See the dry-run checks in file_ops.c > > > >Even if the patch sent is incorrect, shouldn't there be some process > >bypass in updateControlFile() and createBackupLabel() in case of a > >--dry-run? > > They both use open_target_file() and write_target_file(), which > check for --dry-run and do nothing if it's set. > > Hmm, I wonder it we should print something else than "Done!" at the > end, if run in --dry-run mode. Or give some indication around the > time it says "Rewinding from last common checkpoint at ...", that > it's running in dry-run mode and won't actually modify anything. The > progress messages are a bit alarming if you don't realize that it's > skipping all the writes. Wouldn't hurt to also augment that rather doom-looking "point of no return" comment with a note that says writes won't happen if in dry-run. :) For my 2c anyway. Thanks! Stephen
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: