Re: WAL logging problem in 9.4.3?

From: Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net>
Cc: Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Masao Fujii <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, kleptog(at)svana(dot)org, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: WAL logging problem in 9.4.3?
Date: 2016-07-29 07:54:42
Message-ID: CAB7nPqR+3JjS=JB3R=AxxkXCyEB-q77U-ERW7_uKAJCtWNTfrg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 4:59 PM, Michael Paquier
<michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 3:11 PM, Michael Paquier
> <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 12:45 PM, Michael Paquier
>> <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 11:11 AM, David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net> wrote:
>>>> I would prefer not to bump it to the next CF unless we decide this will
>>>> not get fixed for 9.6.
>>>
>>> It may make sense to add that to the list of open items for 9.6
>>> instead. That's not a feature.
>>
>> So I have moved this patch to the next CF for now, and will work on
>> fixing it rather soonishly as an effort to stabilize 9.6 as well as
>> back-branches.
>
> Well, not that soon at the end, but I am back on that... I have not
> completely reviewed all the code yet, and the case of index relation
> referring to a relation optimized with truncate is still broken, but
> for now here is a rebased patch if people are interested. I am going
> to get as well a TAP tests out of my pocket to ease testing.

The patch I sent yesterday was based on an incorrect version. Attached
is a slightly-modified version of the last one I found here
(https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/56B342F5.1050502@iki.fi), which
is rebased on HEAD at ed0b228. I have also converted the test case
script of upthread into a TAP test in src/test/recovery that covers 3
cases and I included that in the patch:
1) CREATE + INSERT + COPY => crash
2) CREATE + trigger + COPY => crash
3) CREATE + TRUNCATE + COPY => incorrect number of rows.
The first two tests make the system crash, the third one reports an
incorrect number of rows.

This is registered in next CF by the way:
https://commitfest.postgresql.org/10/528/
Thoughts?
--
Michael

Attachment Content-Type Size
fix-wal-level-minimal-michael-2.patch invalid/octet-stream 41.6 KB

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Amit Kapila 2016-07-29 10:48:09 Re: System load consideration before spawning parallel workers
Previous Message Haribabu Kommi 2016-07-29 05:56:30 System load consideration before spawning parallel workers