Re: Failed to delete old ReorderBuffer spilled files

From: Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: atorikoshi <torikoshi_atsushi_z2(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>
Cc: Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
Subject: Re: Failed to delete old ReorderBuffer spilled files
Date: 2017-11-24 01:57:17
Message-ID: CAMsr+YE+g72AYNN_fkx+BuYrHDYShfUnsmjNx=oEn=iw73gwjg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 24 November 2017 at 09:20, atorikoshi <torikoshi_atsushi_z2(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp
> wrote:

>
> Thanks for letting me know.
> I think I only tested running "make check" at top directory, sorry
> for my insufficient test.
>
> The test failure happened at the beginning of replication(creating
> slot), so there are no changes yet and getting the tail of changes
> failed.
>
> Because the bug we are fixing only happens after creating files,
> I've added "txn->serialized" to the if statement condition.

Thanks.

Re-reading the patch I see

* The final_lsn of which transaction that hasn't produced an abort
* record is invalid.

which I find very hard to parse. I suggest:

We set final_lsn when we decode the commit or abort record for a
transaction,
but transactions implicitly aborted by a crash never write such a record.

then continue from there with the same text as in the patch.

Otherwise I'm happy. It passes make check, test decoding and the recovery
TAP tests too.

--
Craig Ringer http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Craig Ringer 2017-11-24 02:03:51 Re: How is the PostgreSQL debuginfo file generated
Previous Message Thomas Munro 2017-11-24 01:47:48 Re: [HACKERS] HASH_CHUNK_SIZE vs malloc rounding