Re: Allow pg_archivecleanup to remove backup history files
От | torikoshia |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Allow pg_archivecleanup to remove backup history files |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 61abc656edfba4a668b367d590b1aaab@oss.nttdata.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Allow pg_archivecleanup to remove backup history files (Bharath Rupireddy <bharath.rupireddyforpostgres@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Allow pg_archivecleanup to remove backup history files
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 2023-05-10 17:52, Bharath Rupireddy wrote: Thanks for your comments! > Just curious to know the driving point behind this proposal - is > pg_archivecleanup deployed in production that was unable to clean up > the history files and there were many such history files left? It will > help us know how pg_archivecleanup is being used. Yes. > Just curious to know the driving point behind this proposal - is > pg_archivecleanup deployed in production that was unable to clean up > the history files and there were many such history files left? It will > help us know how pg_archivecleanup is being used. > > I'm wondering if making -x generic with '-x' '.backup', is simpler > than adding another option? Since according to the current semantics, deleting backup history files with -x demands not '-x .backup' but '-x .007C9330.backup' when the file name is 0000000100001234000055CD.007C9330.backup, it needs special treatment for backup history files, right? I think it would be intuitive and easier to remember than new option. I was a little concerned about what to do when deleting both the files ending in .gz and backup history files. Is making it possible to specify both "-x .backup" and "-x .gz" the way to go? I also concerned someone might add ".backup" to WAL files, but does that usually not happen? > Comments on the patch: > 1. Why just only the backup history files? Why not remove the timeline > history files too? Is it because there may not be as many tli switches > happening as backups? Yeah, do you think we should also add logic for '-x .history'? > 2.+sub remove_backuphistoryfile_run_check > +{ > Why to invent a new function when run_check() can be made generic with > few arguments passed? Thanks, I'm going to reconsider it. -- Regards, -- Atsushi Torikoshi NTT DATA CORPORATION
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: