Re: Recovery inconsistencies, standby much larger than primary

From: Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Subject: Re: Recovery inconsistencies, standby much larger than primary
Date: 2014-02-12 18:42:07
Message-ID: CAM-w4HOK2g1ERfr+JvigHFeESvaSA1Urrd0Kh+0vdDAMGJ-Tbw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 5:29 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> How about the attached instead?

This does possibly allocate an extra block past the target block. I'm
not sure how surprising that would be for the rest of the code.

For what it's worth I've confirmed the bug in wal-e caused the initial
problem. But I think it's possible to occur without that bug so I
think it still needs to be addressed.

--
greg

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2014-02-12 18:47:41 Re: WIP patch for Todo Item : Provide fallback_application_name in contrib/pgbench, oid2name, and dblink
Previous Message Tom Lane 2014-02-12 18:34:03 Re: truncating pg_multixact/members