Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2024 09:53:00 -0600
From: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
Cc: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>,
	Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>,
	"pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org" <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: .ready and .done files considered harmful
Message-ID: <Z1sG3GEBYCJn93Ld@nathan>
References: <ZzVFxi5XmSjLPbfO@paquier.xyz>
 <202412121529.45xvpzt2bomn@alvherre.pgsql>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <202412121529.45xvpzt2bomn@alvherre.pgsql>
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/Z1sG3GEBYCJn93Ld%40nathan>
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Dec 12, 2024 at 04:29:47PM +0100, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On 2024-Nov-14, Michael Paquier wrote:
> 
>> On Wed, Nov 13, 2024 at 02:52:31PM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
>> > On Wed, Nov 13, 2024 at 11:05 AM Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> wrote:
>> >> So, my question now is, would there be much opposition to backpatching
>> >> beb4e9ba1652 + 1fb17b190341 to REL_14_STABLE?
>> > 
>> > It seems like it's been long enough now that if the new logic had
>> > major problems we probably would have found them by now; so I feel
>> > like it's probably pretty safe. Perhaps it's questionable how many
>> > people we'll help by back-patching this into one additional release,
>> > but if you feel it's worth it I wouldn't be inclined to argue.
>> 
>> +1 for v14 as this version is still around for two years.
> 
> Thanks, I have pushed it now.

I'm happy to see these changes are proving to be useful!  FWIW commit
756e221 should further reduce archiving overhead, but that may make it more
likely that the server will attempt to re-archive files after a crash, so
I'm not sure I would advise back-patching it.

-- 
nathan