|From:||Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6(at)gmail(dot)com>|
|Cc:||Andrew Dunstan <andrew(dot)dunstan(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>|
|Subject:||Re: [HACKERS] WAL logging problem in 9.4.3?|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox|
> On Wed, Nov 14, 2018 at 4:48 AM Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> wrote:
> 0004 was shot by e9edc1ba0b. Rebased to the current HEAD.
> Successfully built and passeed all regression/recovery tests
> including additional recovery/t/016_wal_optimize.pl.
Thank you for working on this patch. Unfortunately, cfbot complains that
v4-0004-Fix-WAL-skipping-feature.patch could not be applied without conflicts.
Could you please post a rebased version one more time?
> On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 9:26 PM Andrew Dunstan <andrew(dot)dunstan(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> On 07/18/2018 10:58 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> > On 18/07/18 16:29, Robert Haas wrote:
> >> On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 9:06 AM, Michael Paquier
> >> <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote:
> >>>> What's wrong with the approach proposed in
> >>>> http://postgr.es/m/55AFC302.firstname.lastname@example.org ?
> >>> For back-branches that's very invasive so that seems risky to me
> >>> particularly seeing the low number of complaints on the matter.
> >> Hmm. I think that if you disable the optimization, you're betting that
> >> people won't mind losing performance in this case in a maintenance
> >> release. If you back-patch Heikki's approach, you're betting that the
> >> committed version doesn't have any bugs that are worse than the status
> >> quo. Personally, I'd rather take the latter bet. Maybe the patch
> >> isn't all there yet, but that seems like something we can work
> >> towards. If we just give up and disable the optimization, we won't
> >> know how many people we ticked off or how badly until after we've done
> >> it.
> > Yeah. I'm not happy about backpatching a big patch like what I
> > proposed, and Kyotaro developed further. But I think it's the least
> > bad option we have, the other options discussed seem even worse.
> > One way to review the patch is to look at what it changes, when
> > wal_level is *not* set to minimal, i.e. what risk or overhead does it
> > pose to users who are not affected by this bug? It seems pretty safe
> > to me.
> > The other aspect is, how confident are we that this actually fixes the
> > bug, with least impact to users using wal_level='minimal'? I think
> > it's the best shot we have so far. All the other proposals either
> > don't fully fix the bug, or hurt performance in some legit cases.
> > I'd suggest that we continue based on the patch that Kyotaro posted at
> > https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20180330.100646.86008470.horiguchi.kyotaro%40lab.ntt.co.jp.
> I have just spent some time reviewing Kyatoro's patch. I'm a bit
> nervous, too, given the size. But I'm also nervous about leaving things
> as they are. I suspect the reason we haven't heard more about this is
> that these days use of "wal_level = minimal" is relatively rare.
I'm totally out of context of this patch, but reading this makes me nervous
too. Taking into account that the problem now is lack of review, do you have
plans to spend more time reviewing this patch?
|Next Message||Peter Eisentraut||2018-11-30 18:24:07||Re: Support custom socket directory in pg_upgrade|
|Previous Message||Dmitry Dolgov||2018-11-30 17:02:15||Re: [HACKERS] Optional message to user when terminating/cancelling backend|