On 01/09/2014 12:05 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > Actually, why is the partially-filled 000000010000000000000002 file > archived in the first place? Looking at the code, it's been like that > forever, but it seems like a bad idea. If the original server is still > up and running, and writing more data to that file, what will happen is > that when the original server later tries to archive it, it will fail > because the partial version of the file is already in the archive. Or > worse, the partial version overwrites a previously archived more > complete version.
Oh! This explains some transient errors I've seen. > Wouldn't it be better to not archive the old segment, and instead switch > to a new segment after writing the end-of-recovery checkpoint, so that > the segment on the new timeline is archived sooner? It would be better to zero-fill and switch segments, yes. We should NEVER be in a position of archiving two different versions of the same segment. -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL Experts Inc. http://pgexperts.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
