| From: | Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrey Borodin <x4mmm(at)yandex-team(dot)ru> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Spurious "apparent wraparound" via SimpleLruTruncate() rounding |
| Date: | 2021-01-12 08:49:53 |
| Message-ID: | 20210112084953.GB323812@rfd.leadboat.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 11:22:05AM +0500, Andrey Borodin wrote:
> I'm marking patch as ready for committer.
Thanks.
> I can't tell should we backpatch insurance patch or not: it potentially fixes unknown bugs, and potentially contains unknown bugs. I can't reason because of such uncertainty. I've tried to look for any potential problem and as for now I see none. Chances are <slru-truncate-t-insurance-v5.patch> is doing code less error-prone.
What do you think of abandoning slru-truncate-t-insurance entirely? As of
https://postgr.es/m/20200330052809.GB2324620@rfd.leadboat.com I liked the idea
behind it, despite its complicating the system for hackers and DBAs. The
TruncateMultiXact() interaction rendered it less appealing. In v14+, commit
cd5e822 mitigates the kind of bugs that slru-truncate-t-insurance mitigates,
further reducing the latter's value. slru-truncate-t-insurance does mitigate
larger trespasses into unlink-eligible space, though.
> Fix <slru-truncate-modulo-v6.patch> certainly worth backpatching.
I'll push it on Saturday, probably.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bharath Rupireddy | 2021-01-12 09:33:44 | Re: logical replication worker accesses catalogs in error context callback |
| Previous Message | Luc Vlaming | 2021-01-12 08:30:26 | Re: Parallel Inserts in CREATE TABLE AS |