Re: avoid multiple hard links to same WAL file after a crash

From: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
Cc: Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>, tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us, robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: avoid multiple hard links to same WAL file after a crash
Date: 2022-07-05 16:58:38
Message-ID: 20220705165838.GA1232533@nathanxps13
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Jul 05, 2022 at 10:19:49AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Thu, May 05, 2022 at 08:10:02PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> I'd agree with removing all the callers at the end. pgrename() is
>> quite robust on Windows, but I'd keep the two checks in
>> writeTimeLineHistory(), as the logic around findNewestTimeLine() would
>> consider a past TLI history file as in-use even if we have a crash
>> just after the file got created in the same path by the same standby,
>> and the WAL segment init part. Your patch does that.
>
> As v16 is now open for business, I have revisited this change and
> applied 0001 to change all the callers (aka removal of the assertion
> for the WAL receiver when it overwrites a TLI history file). The
> commit log includes details about the reasoning of all the areas
> changed, for clarity, as of the WAL recycling part, the TLI history
> file part and basic_archive.

Thanks! I wonder if we should add a comment in writeTimeLineHistoryFile()
about possible concurrent use by a WAL receiver and the startup process and
why that is okay.

--
Nathan Bossart
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2022-07-05 16:59:42 Re: [UNVERIFIED SENDER] Re: pg_upgrade can result in early wraparound on databases with high transaction load
Previous Message Justin Pryzby 2022-07-05 16:56:05 Re: pg15b2: large objects lost on upgrade