| From: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Vitaly Davydov <v(dot)davydov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)" <kuroda(dot)hayato(at)fujitsu(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: | 2025-06-20 02:55:34 |
| Message-ID: | CAA4eK1JnPmVW+yxJSxxjU+-93x4TojSZhK9v1ZavH8uCe_5Arw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Jun 20, 2025 at 5:48 AM Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> >
> > If what I said above is correct, then the following part of the commit
> > message will be incorrect:
> > "As stated in the ReplicationSlotReserveWal() comment, this is not
> > always true. Additionally, this issue has been spotted by some
> > buildfarm
> > members."
>
> I agree, this comment needs improvement in terms of clarity.
>
> Meanwhile I've pushed the patch for TAP tests, which I think didn't
> get any objections.
>
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.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Smith | 2025-06-20 03:57:39 | Re: Skipping schema changes in publication |
| Previous Message | David G. Johnston | 2025-06-20 02:13:42 | Re: pgv18: simple table scan take more time than pgv14 |