Re: Don't choke on files that are removed while pg_rewind runs.
От | Michael Paquier |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Don't choke on files that are removed while pg_rewind runs. |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20200713121824.GB10826@paquier.xyz обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Don't choke on files that are removed while pg_rewind runs. (Daniel Gustafsson <daniel@yesql.se>) |
Ответы |
Re: Don't choke on files that are removed while pg_rewind runs.
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Jul 13, 2020 at 10:12:54AM +0200, Daniel Gustafsson wrote: > Does it? PGgetvalue will return an empty string and not NULL, so atol will > convert that to zero wont it? It can be argued whether zero is the right size > for a missing file, but it shouldn't crash at least. Nay, you are right. Thanks. > It does convey the meaning of code to do it after, since the data isn't useful > in case the filesize is zero, but I don't have strong feelings for/against. > Question is, rather than discard rows pulled from the server, should the query > be tweaked to not include it in the first place instead? That sounds like a good idea with an extra qual in the first part of the inner CTE, if coupled with a check to make sure that we never get a NULL result. Now there is IMO an argument to not complicate more this query as it is not like a lot of tuples would get filtered out anyway because of a NULL set of values? I don't have strong feelings for one approach or the other, but if I were to choose, I would just let the code as-is, without the change in the CTE. -- Michael
Вложения
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: