Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> On 11.03.2011 19:41, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Heikki Linnakangas<heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> >> On 11.03.2011 17:59, Tom Lane wrote:
> >>> But that will be fixed during WAL replay.
> >> Not under the circumstances that started the original thread:
> >> 1. Backend splits a page
> >> 2. Checkpoint starts
> >> 3. Checkpoint runs to completion
> >> 4. Crash
> >> (5. Backend never got to insert the parent pointer)
> >> WAL replay starts at the checkpoint redo pointer, which is after the
> >> page split record, so WAL replay won't insert the parent pointer. That's
> >> an incredibly tight window to hit in practice, but it's possible in theory.
> > Hmm. It's not so improbable that checkpoint would start inside that
> > window, but that the parent insertion is still pending by the time the
> > checkpoint finishes is pretty improbable.
> > How about just reducing the deletion-time ERROR for missing downlink to a LOG?
> Well, the code that follows expects to have a valid parent page locked,
> so you can't literally do just that. But yeah, LOG and aborting the page
> deletion seems fine to me.
Did this get fixed?
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Bruce Momjian||Date: 2011-09-05 19:00:49|
|Subject: Re: memory-related bugs|
|Previous:||From: Bruce Momjian||Date: 2011-09-05 18:51:12|
|Subject: Re: [GENERAL] pg_upgrade problem|