Re: [CORE] postpone next week's release

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>
Cc: "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, pgsql-core <pgsql-core(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [CORE] postpone next week's release
Date: 2015-05-29 19:18:56
Message-ID: CA+TgmoZYFXveSQO=Z4gDpvCBBCYgTFQgKec0=1EKshyJQ7kzyg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 3:09 PM, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> wrote:
> Do you have any feeling of how likely people are to actually hit the
> multixact one? I've followed some of that impressive debugging you guys did,
> and I know it's a pretty critical bug if you hit it, but how wide-spread
> will it be?

That precise problem has been reported a few times, but it may not be
widespread. I don't know. My bigger concern is that, at present,
taking a base backup is broken. I haven't figured out the exact
reproduction scenario, but I think it's something like this:

- begin base backup
- checkpoint happens, truncating pg_multixact
- at this point pg_multixact gets copied
- end base backup

I think what will happen on replay is that replaying the checkpoint,
it will try to reference pg_multixact files that don't exist any more
and die with a fatal error.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Joshua D. Drake 2015-05-29 19:20:10 Re: RFC: Remove contrib entirely
Previous Message Joshua D. Drake 2015-05-29 19:14:22 Re: RFC: Remove contrib entirely