Re: Backward movement of confirmed_flush resulting in data duplication.

From: Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Nisha Moond <nisha(dot)moond412(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: shveta malik <shveta(dot)malik(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, "Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)" <houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com>
Subject: Re: Backward movement of confirmed_flush resulting in data duplication.
Date: 2025-05-19 09:43:19
Message-ID: CAA4eK1J3eci33mS3ZNh208e0pG=+7YeecBJda4o=3u_b1GFoow@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, May 16, 2025 at 5:39 PM Nisha Moond <nisha(dot)moond412(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, May 13, 2025 at 3:48 PM shveta malik <shveta(dot)malik(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > With the given script, the problem reproduces on Head and PG17. We are
> > trying to reproduce the issue on PG16 and below where injection points
> > are not there.
> >
>
> The issue can also be reproduced on PostgreSQL versions 13 through 16.
>

Thanks. I have pushed the fix.

--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Aleksander Alekseev 2025-05-19 10:25:00 Re: Should we optimize the `ORDER BY random() LIMIT x` case?
Previous Message Amit Kapila 2025-05-19 09:15:56 Re: POC: enable logical decoding when wal_level = 'replica' without a server restart