Re: Recovery inconsistencies, standby much larger than primary

From: Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Recovery inconsistencies, standby much larger than primary
Date: 2014-01-31 15:56:43
Message-ID: 20140131155643.GK13199@alap3.anarazel.de
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2014-01-31 10:33:16 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> > It's interesting that the smgr gets this wrong then (as also evidenced
> > by the fact that relation_size does as well). Could you please do a ls
> > -l path/to/relfilenode*?
>
> IIRC, smgrnblocks will stop as soon as it finds a segment that is not
> 1GB in size. Could you check the lengths of all segments for that
> relation?

I am not sure that explains the issue, but I think the redo action for
truncation is not safe across crashes. A XLOG_SMGR_TRUNCATE will just
do a smgrtruncate() (and then mdtruncate) which will iterate over the
segments starting at 0 till mdnblocks()/segment_size and *truncate* but
not delete individual segment files that are not needed anymore, right?
If we crash in the midst of that a new mdtruncate() will be issued, but
it will get a shorter value back from mdnblocks().

Am I missing something?

Greetings,

Andres Freund

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Greg Stark 2014-01-31 16:09:24 Re: Recovery inconsistencies, standby much larger than primary
Previous Message Greg Stark 2014-01-31 15:47:12 Re: Recovery inconsistencies, standby much larger than primary