Re: Enforcing that all WAL has been replayed after restoring from backup

From: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Enforcing that all WAL has been replayed after restoring from backup
Date: 2011-08-10 12:34:24
Message-ID: CA+U5nMJyrryzq2m0RQQgS7wFM1TE8iADX+9VMgg9=uL=3uruhA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 1:19 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 6:53 AM, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 12:44, Heikki Linnakangas
>> <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
>>> On 10.08.2011 12:29, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 18:07, Tom Lane<tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>  wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Heikki Linnakangas<heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>  writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 09.08.2011 18:20, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> How about making the new backup_label field optional?  If absent,
>>>>>>> assume
>>>>>>> current behavior.
>>>>>
>>>>>> That's how I actually did it in the patch. However, the problem wrt.
>>>>>> requiring initdb is not the new field in backup_label, it's the new
>>>>>> field in the control file.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yeah.  I think it's too late to be fooling with pg_control for 9.1.
>>>>> Just fix it in HEAD.
>>>>
>>>> Should we add a note to the documentation of pg_basebackup in 9.1
>>>> telling people to take care about the failure case?
>>>
>>> Something like "Note: if you abort the backup before it's finished, the
>>> backup won't be valid" ? That seems pretty obvious to me, hardly worth
>>> documenting.
>>
>> I meant something more along the line of that it looks ok, but may be corrupted.
>
> Yeah.  I'm frankly pretty nervous about shipping 9.1 with this
> problem, but note that I don't have a better idea.  I'd favor making
> pg_basebackup emit a warning or maybe even remove the backup if it's
> aborted midway through.

I don't understand why we need to change pg_control for this?

Why can't we just add a line to backup_label as the first action of
pg_basebackup and then updated it the last action to show the backup
set is complete?

That would be safe for 9.1

--
 Simon Riggs                   http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
 PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Magnus Hagander 2011-08-10 13:03:40 Re: Review of VS 2010 support patches
Previous Message Robert Haas 2011-08-10 12:20:25 Re: index sizes: single table vs partitioned