The documentation states in http://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/static/continuous-archiving.html#BACKUP-ARCHIVING-WAL
"The archive command should generally be designed to refuse to overwrite any pre-existing archive file." and suggests an archive_command like "test ! -f .../%f && cp %p .../%f". We ran into (small) problems with an archive_command similar to this as follows: The server received a fast shutdown request while a WAL segment was being archived. The archiver stopped and left behind a half-written archive file. Now when the server was restarted, the archiver tried to archive the same WAL segment again and got an error because the destination file already existed. That means that WAL archiving is stuck until somebody manually removes the partial archived file. I suggest that the documentation be changed so that it does not recommend this setup. WAL segment names are unique anyway. What is your opinion? Is the problem I encountered a corner case that should be ignored? Yours, Laurenz Albe -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
