Re: could not link file in wal restore lines

From: David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net>
To: Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: zsolt(dot)ero(at)gmail(dot)com, pgsql-bugs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz
Subject: Re: could not link file in wal restore lines
Date: 2022-07-26 11:33:09
Message-ID: 8bc21242-6a7c-47b3-5af1-e6c9956d5ffa@pgmasters.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-bugs

On 7/26/22 02:03, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
> At Tue, 26 Jul 2022 11:48:14 +0900 (JST), Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote in
>> Ah, sorry for posting following too-early messages in the thread.
>>
>> At Mon, 25 Jul 2022 08:40:12 -0400, David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net> wrote in
>>> Your system seems to be doing recovery pretty quickly. I wonder if
>>> there is a race condition in WAL recycling?
>
> And it has been fixed by cc2c7d65fc in PG15. That discussion [1]
> concluded that we don't back-patch it.
>
> [1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/20210202151416.GB3304930%40rfd.leadboat.com
>> Does anyone prefer some alternative? It's probably not worth
>> back-patching anything for a restartpoint failure this rare, because
>> most restartpoint outcomes are not user-visible.

I have responded on that thread to see if Noah can have a look and
decide if it would be worth back-patching cc2c7d65fc.

There have been other changes in this area (e.g. removing
durable_rename_excl) so it would be good to know if back-patching just
cc2c7d65fc will work.

Kyotaro, since you can reproduce the issue would you be willing to test
that?

Regards,
-David

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-bugs by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Marco Boeringa 2022-07-26 12:40:57 Re: Fwd: "SELECT COUNT(*) FROM" still causing issues (deadlock) in PostgreSQL 14.3/4?
Previous Message Kyotaro Horiguchi 2022-07-26 06:03:11 Re: could not link file in wal restore lines