Re: Error while copying a large file in pg_rewind

From: Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Kuntal Ghosh <kuntalghosh(dot)2007(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>
Subject: Re: Error while copying a large file in pg_rewind
Date: 2017-07-20 06:17:38
Message-ID: CAB7nPqSb0=jkBnGy0swZnmc36zHDXTgcFAD_f_CeOfykHOo1zg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 9:33 AM, Michael Paquier
<michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 4:31 PM, Kuntal Ghosh <kuntalghosh(dot)2007(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 7:49 AM, Michael Paquier
>> <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> I don't have any more inputs on this patch and it looks good to me.
>> So, I'm moving the status to ready for committer.
>
> Thanks!
>
>>> At some point it would really make sense to group all things under the
>>> same banner (64-b LO, pg_basebackup, and now pg_rewind).
>>>
>> +1. Implementation-wise, I prefer pg_recvint64 to fe_recvint64.
>
> So do I. That's a matter of taste I guess.

Heikki, this bug is rather bad for anybody using pg_rewind with
relation file sizes larger than 2GB as this corrupts data of
instances. I think that you would be the best fit as a committer to
look at this patch as you implemented the tool first, and it would be
a bad idea to let that sit for a too long time. Could it be possible
to spare a bit of your time at some point to look at it?
--
Michael

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Ashutosh Bapat 2017-07-20 06:17:57 Re: Partition-wise join for join between (declaratively) partitioned tables
Previous Message Amit Langote 2017-07-20 06:16:57 Re: Partition-wise join for join between (declaratively) partitioned tables