From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: basebackups during ALTER DATABASE ... SET TABLESPACE ... not safe? |
Date: | 2015-01-23 15:10:17 |
Message-ID: | 20150123151017.GL11664@awork2.anarazel.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2015-01-22 22:58:17 +0100, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2015-01-22 16:38:49 -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > I'm trying to figure out why you'd do '2' in master when in discussion
> > of '1' you say "I also don't think ALTER DATABASE is even intentionally
> > run at the time of a base backup." I agree with that sentiment and am
> > inclined to say that '1' is good enough throughout.
>
> Because the way it currently works is a major crock. It's more luck than
> anything that it actually somewhat works. We normally rely on WAL to
> bring us into a consistent state. But around CREATE/MOVE/DROP DATABASE
> we've ignored that.
> And. Hm. The difficulty of the current method is evidenced by the fact
> that so far nodoby recognized that 1) as described above isn't actually
> safe. It fails to protect against basebackups on a standby as its
> XLogCtl state will obviously not be visible on the master.
Further evidenced by the fact that the current method isn't
crash/shutdown safe at all. If a standby was shut down/crashed/was
started on a base backup when a CREATE DATABASE from the primary is
replayed the template database used can be in an nearly arbitrarily bad
state. It'll later get fixed up by recovery - but those changes won't
make it to the copied database.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Sawada Masahiko | 2015-01-23 15:27:49 | Re: Proposal: knowing detail of config files via SQL |
Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2015-01-23 15:06:29 | Re: WITH CHECK and Column-Level Privileges |