On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 12:39 AM, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakan...@vmware.com> wrote: > On 21.02.2013 02:59, Daniel Farina wrote: >> >> On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 9:29 AM, Simon Riggs<si...@2ndquadrant.com> >> wrote: >>> >>> On 15 February 2013 17:07, Heikki Linnakangas<hlinnakan...@vmware.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>>> Unfortunately in HEAD, xxx.done file is not created when restoring >>>>> archived >>>>> file because of absence of the patch. We need to implement that first. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Ah yeah, that thing again.. >>>> (http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/50df5ba7.6070...@vmware.com) I'm >>>> going >>>> to forward-port that patch now, before it's forgotten again. It's not >>>> clear >>>> to me what the holdup was on this, but whatever the bigger patch we've >>>> been >>>> waiting for is, it can just as well be done on top of the forward-port. >>> >>> >>> Agreed. I wouldn't wait for a better version now. >> >> >> Related to this, how is this going to affect point releases, and are >> there any lingering doubts about the mechanism of the fix? > > > Are you talking about the patch to avoid restored WAL segments from being > re-archived (commit 6f4b8a4f4f7a2d683ff79ab59d3693714b965e3d), or the bug > that that unarchived WALs were deleted after crash (commit > b5ec56f664fa20d80fe752de494ec96362eff520)? The former was included in 9.2.0 > already, and the latter will be included in the next point release.
Unarchived WALs being deleted after a crash is the one that worries me. I actually presume re-archivals will happen anyway because I may lose connection to archive storage after the WAL has already been committed, hence b5ec56f664fa20d80fe752de494ec96362eff520. >> This is >> quite serious given my reliance on archiving, so unless the thinking >> for point releases is 'real soon' I must backpatch and release it on >> my own accord until then. > > > I don't know what the release schedule is. I take that to be a request to > put out a new minor release ASAP. Perhaps, but it's more of a concrete evaluation of how important archiving is to me and my affiliated operation. An acceptable answer might be "yeah, backpatch if you feel it's that much of a rush." Clearly, my opinion is that a gap in the archives is pretty cringe-inducing. I hit it from an out of disk case, and you'd be surprised (or perhaps not?) how many people like to kill -9 processes on a whim. I already maintain other backpatches (not related to fixes), and this one is only temporary, so it's not too much trouble for me. -- fdr -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
