Re: archive status ".ready" files may be created too early
От | alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org |
---|---|
Тема | Re: archive status ".ready" files may be created too early |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 202108181745.bi4s5alwmadt@alvherre.pgsql обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: archive status ".ready" files may be created too early ("alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org" <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>) |
Ответы |
Re: archive status ".ready" files may be created too early
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 2021-Aug-18, alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org wrote: > I realize this means there's a contradiction with my previous argument, > in that synchronous transaction commit calls XLogWrite at some point, so > we *are* putting the client-connected backend in charge of creating the > notify files. However, that only happens on transaction commit, where > we already accept responsibility for the WAL flush, not on each > individual XLOG record insert; also, the WAL writer will take care of it > sometimes, for transactions that are long-enough lived. Eh. I just said WAL writer will sometimes do it, and that's true because it'll occur in XLogBackgroundFlush. But upthread I wimped out of having WAL writer call NotifySegmentsReadyForArchive() and instead opined to give responsibility to bgwriter. However, thinking about it again, maybe it does make sense to have walwriter do it too directly. This causes no harm to walwriter's time constraints, since *it will have to do it via XLogBackgroundFlush anyway*. -- Álvaro Herrera Valdivia, Chile — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: