Re: WAL logging problem in 9.4.3?

From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>
Cc: michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com, david(at)pgmasters(dot)net, hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi, simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com, tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us, andres(at)anarazel(dot)de, masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com, kleptog(at)svana(dot)org, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: WAL logging problem in 9.4.3?
Date: 2017-04-07 23:42:17
Message-ID: 20170407234217.i345adtkknjfw6ss@alvherre.pgsql
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Alvaro Herrera wrote:

> I suppose the rationale is that this shouldn't happen because any
> operation that does things this way must hold an exclusive lock on the
> relation. But that doesn't guarantee that the relcache entry is
> completely stable, does it? If we can get proof of that, then this
> technique should be safe, I think.

It occurs to me that in order to test this we could run the recovery
tests (including Michael's new 006 file, which you didn't include in
your patch) under -D CLOBBER_CACHE_ALWAYS. I think that'd be sufficient
proof that it is solid.

Álvaro Herrera
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Keith Fiske 2017-04-08 00:02:31 Re: Partitioned tables vs GRANT
Previous Message Alvaro Herrera 2017-04-07 23:36:25 Re: WAL logging problem in 9.4.3?