Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1bN6k0-0004Bf-LU for pgsql-bugs@arkaria.postgresql.org; Tue, 12 Jul 2016 23:05:24 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with smtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1bN6k0-0002LE-4W for pgsql-bugs@arkaria.postgresql.org; Tue, 12 Jul 2016 23:05:24 +0000 Received: from magus.postgresql.org ([2a02:c0:301:0:ffff::29]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1bN6jy-0002L5-NN for pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org; Tue, 12 Jul 2016 23:05:22 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([66.207.139.130]) by magus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1bN6jv-0005yQ-7w for pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org; Tue, 12 Jul 2016 23:05:22 +0000 Received: from sss1.sss.pgh.pa.us (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id u6CN5GlM013702; Tue, 12 Jul 2016 19:05:16 -0400 From: Tom Lane To: Alvaro Herrera cc: Amit Kapila , harukat@sraoss.co.jp, PostgreSQL Bugs Subject: Re: BUG #14243: pg_basebackup failes by a STATUS_DELETE_PENDING file In-reply-to: <20160712225404.GA892041@alvherre.pgsql> References: <20160712225404.GA892041@alvherre.pgsql> Comments: In-reply-to Alvaro Herrera message dated "Tue, 12 Jul 2016 18:54:04 -0400" Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2016 19:05:16 -0400 Message-ID: <13701.1468364716@sss.pgh.pa.us> X-Pg-Spam-Score: -3.2 (---) List-Archive: List-Help: List-ID: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Mailing-List: pgsql-bugs Precedence: bulk Sender: pgsql-bugs-owner@postgresql.org Alvaro Herrera writes: >> On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 2:02 PM, wrote: >>> It means file 16444 is in STATUS_DELETE_PENDING. > This file is probably being deleted by a checkpoint after some user > transaction marked it for removal (either because the relation was > dropped, or because it got a new relfilenode). I would say that the > file is not needed for the backup after all and pg_basebackup should > just ignore it. Yeah. The question is how do we distinguish that from cases that are less benign. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-bugs mailing list (pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-bugs