Aidan Van Dyk wrote: > * Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com> [100210 02:33]: > >> Hmm, so after running restore_command, check the file size and if it's >> too short, treat it the same as if restore_command returned non-zero? >> And it will be retried on the next iteration. Works for me, though OTOH >> it will then fail to complain about a genuinely WAL file that's >> truncated for some reason. I guess there's no way around that, even if >> you have a script as restore_command that does the file size check, it >> will have the same problem. > > But isn't this something every current PITR archive already "works > around"... Everybody doing PITR archives already know the importance of > making the *appearance* of the WAL filename in the archive atomic.
Well, pg_standby does defend against that, but you don't use pg_standby with the built-in standby mode anymore. It would be reasonable to have the same level of defenses built-in. It's essentially a one-line change, and saves a lot of trouble and risk of subtle misconfiguration for admins. > Don't docs warn about plain cp not being atomic and allowing "short" > files to appear in the archive... Hmm, I don't see anything about that at quick glance. Besides, normal PITR doesn't have a problem with that, because it will stop when it reaches the end of archived WAL anyway. -- Heikki Linnakangas EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
