| From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> | 
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> | 
| Cc: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org | 
| Subject: | Re: Inadequate thought about buffer locking during hot standby replay | 
| Date: | 2012-11-12 19:40:53 | 
| Message-ID: | CA+U5nMLjiR_+32KX_F46heLDaFyZtPzCtKDFRoKNqLBMhZuWTg@mail.gmail.com | 
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email | 
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers | 
On 12 November 2012 14:51, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> The 9.0 code is broken, however. In
>> 9.0, when a child page is split, the parent and new children are kept
>> locked until the downlinks are inserted/updated. If a concurrent scan
>> comes along and sees that incomplete state, it will miss tuples on the
>> new right siblings. We rely on a rm_cleanup operation at the end of WAL
>> replay to fix that situation, if the downlink insertion record is not
>> there. I don't see any easy way to fix that, unfortunately. Perhaps we
>> could backpatch the 9.1 rewrite, now that it's gotten some real-world
>> testing, but it was a big change so I don't feel very comfortable doing
>> that.
>
> Me either.  Given the lack of field complaints, I think we're better
> advised to just leave it unfixed in 9.0.  It'd not be a step forward
> if we broke something trying to make this work.
Agreed. Most people running 9.0 with GIST indexes have already upgraded.
-- 
 Simon Riggs                   http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
 PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Markus Wanner | 2012-11-12 19:44:02 | Re: Enabling Checksums | 
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2012-11-12 19:39:09 | Re: Inadequate thought about buffer locking during hot standby replay |