On 2023-05-10 17:52, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
Thanks for your comments!
> Just curious to know the driving point behind this proposal - is
> pg_archivecleanup deployed in production that was unable to clean up
> the history files and there were many such history files left? It will
> help us know how pg_archivecleanup is being used.
Yes.
> Just curious to know the driving point behind this proposal - is
> pg_archivecleanup deployed in production that was unable to clean up
> the history files and there were many such history files left? It will
> help us know how pg_archivecleanup is being used.
>
> I'm wondering if making -x generic with '-x' '.backup', is simpler
> than adding another option?
Since according to the current semantics, deleting backup history files
with -x demands not '-x .backup' but '-x .007C9330.backup' when the file
name is 0000000100001234000055CD.007C9330.backup, it needs special
treatment for backup history files, right?
I think it would be intuitive and easier to remember than new option.
I was a little concerned about what to do when deleting both the files
ending in .gz and backup history files.
Is making it possible to specify both "-x .backup" and "-x .gz" the way
to go?
I also concerned someone might add ".backup" to WAL files, but does that
usually not happen?
> Comments on the patch:
> 1. Why just only the backup history files? Why not remove the timeline
> history files too? Is it because there may not be as many tli switches
> happening as backups?
Yeah, do you think we should also add logic for '-x .history'?
> 2.+sub remove_backuphistoryfile_run_check
> +{
> Why to invent a new function when run_check() can be made generic with
> few arguments passed?
Thanks, I'm going to reconsider it.
--
Regards,
--
Atsushi Torikoshi
NTT DATA CORPORATION