From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by turing.freelists.org (Avenir Technologies Mail Multiplex) with ESMTP id 735FA251A5 for ; Tue, 29 Jan 2019 08:00:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from turing.freelists.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (turing.freelists.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bPhLzJ_3q0-L for ; Tue, 29 Jan 2019 08:00:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtp61.i.mail.ru (smtp61.i.mail.ru [217.69.128.41]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by turing.freelists.org (Avenir Technologies Mail Multiplex) with ESMTPS id 2CB0A251F2 for ; Tue, 29 Jan 2019 08:00:49 -0500 (EST) Received: by smtp61.i.mail.ru with esmtpa (envelope-from ) id 1goT0P-0003yp-8D for tarantool-patches@freelists.org; Tue, 29 Jan 2019 16:00:45 +0300 Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2019 16:00:45 +0300 From: Kirill Yukhin Subject: [tarantool-patches] Re: [PATCH 1/2] gc: do not abort garbage collection if failed to unlink snap file Message-ID: <20190129130044.e5xgypmradidjkgc@tarantool.org> References: <783662fb698347f972a57b925bf13f227b710d63.1548425270.git.vdavydov.dev@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <783662fb698347f972a57b925bf13f227b710d63.1548425270.git.vdavydov.dev@gmail.com> Sender: tarantool-patches-bounce@freelists.org Errors-to: tarantool-patches-bounce@freelists.org Reply-To: tarantool-patches@freelists.org List-help: List-unsubscribe: List-software: Ecartis version 1.0.0 List-Id: tarantool-patches List-subscribe: List-owner: List-post: List-archive: To: tarantool-patches@freelists.org Hello Vladimir, On 25 Jan 17:34, Vladimir Davydov wrote: > We build the checkpoint list from the list of memtx snap files. So to > ensure that it is always possible to recover from any checkpoint present > in box.info.gc() output, we abort garbage collection if we fail to > unlink a snap file. This introduces extra complexity to the garbage > collection code, which makes it difficult to make WAL file removal fully > asynchronous. > > Actually, it looks like we are being way too overcautious here, because > unlink() doesn't normally fail so an error while removing a snap file is > highly unlikely to occur. Besides, even if it happens, it still won't be > critical, because we never delete the last checkpoint, which is usually > used for backups/recovery. So let's simplify the code by removing that > check. > > Needed for #3938 > --- > https://github.com/tarantool/tarantool/issues/3938 > https://github.com/tarantool/tarantool/commits/dv/gh-3938-async-wal-file-removal I've committed the patchset into 2.1 branch. Could you pls backport it to 1.10 as well? -- Regards, Kirill Yukhin