Re: Back-patch of: avoid multiple hard links to same WAL file after a crash

On Mon, Mar 10, 2025 at 02:25:28PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 06, 2025 at 01:44:30PM -0600, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 06, 2025 at 11:30:13AM -0800, Noah Misch wrote:
> >> 1. Make v14 and v13 skip WAL recycling and preallocation during archive
> >> recovery, like newer branches do. I think that means back-patching the six
> >> commits cc2c7d6~4 cc2c7d6~3 cc2c7d6~2 cc2c7d6~1 cc2c7d6 e36cbef.
> >>
> >> 2. Revert 1f95181b44c843729caaa688f74babe9403b5850 and its v13 counterpart.
> >> Avoid multiple hard links by making durable_rename_excl() first rename
> >> oldfile to a temporary name. (I haven't thought this through in detail.
> >> It may not suffice.)
> >>
> >> I'm leaning toward (1) at least enough to see how messy the back-patch would
> >> be, since I don't like risks of designing old-branch-specific solutions when
> >> v15/v16/v17 have a proven solution. What else should we be thinking about
> >> before deciding?
> >
> > I agree with first attempting a back-patch. All of this stuff is from
> > 2021-2022, so it's had time to bake and is IMHO lower risk.

> Could it be possible for you to double-check and also run
> more tests if your enviroments help?

Thanks for crafting back-branch versions. I've queued a task to confirm I get
the same result. There's a test case I'll polish, too.