Re: Recovery inconsistencies, standby much larger than primary

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Subject: Re: Recovery inconsistencies, standby much larger than primary
Date: 2014-02-12 18:55:58
Message-ID: 32431.1392231358@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu> writes:
> On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 5:29 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> How about the attached instead?

> This does possibly allocate an extra block past the target block. I'm
> not sure how surprising that would be for the rest of the code.

Should be fine; we could end up with an extra block after a failed
extension operation in any case.

> For what it's worth I've confirmed the bug in wal-e caused the initial
> problem.

Huh? Bug in wal-e? What bug?

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Marco Atzeri 2014-02-12 19:05:42 Re: narwhal and PGDLLIMPORT
Previous Message Tom Lane 2014-02-12 18:51:47 Re: Recovery inconsistencies, standby much larger than primary