| From: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)" <kuroda(dot)hayato(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, Vitaly Davydov <v(dot)davydov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Alexander Lakhin <exclusion(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, "tomas(at)vondra(dot)me" <tomas(at)vondra(dot)me> |
| Subject: | Re: Slot's restart_lsn may point to removed WAL segment after hard restart unexpectedly |
| Date: | 2025-07-18 10:48:22 |
| Message-ID: | CAA4eK1+qYg2nwa7TVz2xN-9FDZHLUGT7NLWHtfdeaf32KN3QEQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Jul 18, 2025 at 4:15 PM Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Jun 29, 2025 at 9:22 AM Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)
> <kuroda(dot)hayato(at)fujitsu(dot)com> wrote:
> > Thanks everyone who are working on the bug. IIUC the remained task is
> > to add code comments for avoiding the same mistake again described here:
> >
> > > Sounds reasonable. As per analysis till now, it seems removal of new
> > > assert is correct and we just need to figure out the reason in all
> > > failure cases as to why the physical slot's restart_lsn goes backward,
> > > and then add a comment somewhere to ensure that we don't repeat a
> > > similar mistake in the future.
> >
> > I've wrote a draft for that. How do you think?
>
> Looks good to me. I'm going to push this if no objections.
>
As discussed earlier, it is a good idea to add comments in this area.
But as this is for pre-existing cases, won't it be better to start a
new thread explaining the cases and a patch? We may get feedback from
others as well.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Nisha Moond | 2025-07-18 10:55:16 | Re: Conflict detection for update_deleted in logical replication |
| Previous Message | Amit Kapila | 2025-07-18 10:45:06 | Re: Logical Replication of sequences |