Aidan Van Dyk wrote:
> * Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakangas@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