Re: pg_rewind WAL segments deletion pitfall

From: torikoshia <torikoshia(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com>
To: Polina Bungina <bungina(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>, cyberdemn(at)gmail(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: pg_rewind WAL segments deletion pitfall
Date: 2023-06-28 13:28:13
Message-ID: 2e75ae22dce9a227c3d47fa6d0ed094a@oss.nttdata.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-bugs pgsql-hackers


On 2022-09-29 17:18, Polina Bungina wrote:
> I agree with your suggestions, so here is the updated version of
> patch. Hope I haven't missed anything.
>
> Regards,
> Polina Bungina

Thanks for working on this!
It seems like we are also facing the same issue.

I tested the v3 patch under our condition, old primary has succeeded to
become new standby.

BTW when I used pg_rewind-removes-wal-segments-reproduce.sh attached in
[1], old primary also failed to become standby:

FATAL: could not receive data from WAL stream: ERROR: requested WAL
segment 000000020000000000000007 has already been removed

However, I think this is not a problem: just adding restore_command
like below fixed the situation.

echo "restore_command = '/bin/cp `pwd`/newarch/%f %p'" >>
oldprim/postgresql.conf

Attached modified reproduction script for reference.

[1]https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAFh8B%3DnNiFZOAPsv49gffxHBPzwmZ%3D6Msd4miMis87K%3Dd9rcRA%40mail.gmail.com

--
Regards,

--
Atsushi Torikoshi
NTT DATA CORPORATION

Attachment Content-Type Size
pg_rewind-removes-wal-segments-reproduce2.sh text/plain 2.5 KB

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-bugs by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2023-06-28 18:49:34 Re: BUG #17994: Invalidating relcache corrupts tupDesc inside ExecEvalFieldStoreDeForm()
Previous Message David Rowley 2023-06-28 10:28:32 Re: BUG #18002: Duplicate entries of row possible even after having primary key

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alena Rybakina 2023-06-28 13:53:06 Re: MergeJoin beats HashJoin in the case of multiple hash clauses
Previous Message Japin Li 2023-06-28 13:26:02 Re: Another incorrect comment for pg_stat_statements