Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2018 15:58:40 +0900
From: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
To: TipTop Labs <office@tiptop-labs.com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6@gmail.com>,
	Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com>,
	Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>,
	PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: BUG #14999: pg_rewind corrupts control file global/pg_control
Message-ID: <20180405065840.GH1732@paquier.xyz>
References: 
 <CA+q6zcVCfeYoAmPyW5R+uxZ0MD6=ZunsW=uP0AS=B=RxB8M7Tg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20180307014624.GC1744@paquier.xyz>
 <CA+q6zcWix34kmuB6PTgizy4-7Eq2Rn4FX3tpwnH5SdgEU7ugPw@mail.gmail.com>
 <30255.1522711675@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <20180403024110.GB1621@paquier.xyz>
 <A89569FD-1CCB-4060-932B-B61DD0F756BF@tiptop-labs.com>
 <20180404072625.GB2208@paquier.xyz>
 <22961.1522867812@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <20180405013818.GC1732@paquier.xyz>
 <E1979209-A39E-4229-BBE0-59BC43FB4691@tiptop-labs.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="fckbADODYWZD5TdN"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <E1979209-A39E-4229-BBE0-59BC43FB4691@tiptop-labs.com>
Precedence: bulk


--fckbADODYWZD5TdN
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline

On Thu, Apr 05, 2018 at 07:04:40AM +0200, TipTop Labs wrote:
> One final word about my original patch, since the commit message for
> 0001 refers to its limitations: I acknowledge that it cannot cover
> situations where the order of processing files is such that the second
> loop detects non-writable files only after it had already done work on
> some others. It was meant to fix the specific problem I ran into
> without breaking the regression tests that ship with the source code
> ("make check"). The main reason that it is not more elaborate is that
> I did not want to submit anything affecting more than a few lines of
> code without prior input from the community.

That definitely makes sense to me.  Reviews and discussions can take a
long time to settle so this method looks right to me.  It is better not
spend too much time on a patch if you unsure of its shape, and much
better to ask for input first before diving more into the details.  This
stuff is really complicated and the devil is in the details.

> So from my perspective I welcome both 0001 and 0002.

OK, thanks for confirming!
--
Michael

--fckbADODYWZD5TdN
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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=e/Jm
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--fckbADODYWZD5TdN--