Re: Don't try fetching future segment of a TLI.

From: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
To: Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com>
Cc: David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net>, Pavel Suderevsky <psuderevsky(at)gmail(dot)com>, Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-bugs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Don't try fetching future segment of a TLI.
Date: 2020-04-07 08:17:32
Message-ID: 20200407081732.GC6655@paquier.xyz
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-bugs pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Apr 07, 2020 at 12:15:00PM +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
> I understood the situation and am fine to back-patch that. But I'm not sure
> if it's fair to do that. Maybe we need to hear more opinions about this?
> OTOH, feature freeze for v13 is today, so what about committing the patch
> in v13 at first, and then doing the back-patch after hearing opinions and
> receiving many +1?

I have not looked at the patch so I cannot say much about it, but it
is annoying to fetch segments you are not going to need anyway if you
target recovery with a timeline older than the segments fetched and
this has a cost when you pay for the bandwidth of your environment
with only one archive location. So a backpatch sounds like a good
thing to do even if recovery is not broken per-se, only slower.

Designing a TAP test for that is tricky, but you could look at the
logs of the backend to make sure that only the wanted segments are
fetched with a central archived solution and multiple timelines
involved. And costly it is.
--
Michael

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-bugs by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message 曾文旌 2020-04-07 09:30:03 [bug] Wrong bool value parameter
Previous Message Michael Paquier 2020-04-07 07:49:44 Re: BUG #16325: Assert failure on partitioning by int for a text value with a collation

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Amit Kapila 2020-04-07 08:42:01 Re: pg_stat_statements issue with parallel maintenance (Was Re: WAL usage calculation patch)
Previous Message Michael Paquier 2020-04-07 08:07:44 Re: [patch] Fix pg_checksums to allow checking of offline base backup directories