| From: | Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)" <kuroda(dot)hayato(at)fujitsu(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Vitaly Davydov <v(dot)davydov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(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: | 2025-07-18 10:44:47 |
| Message-ID: | CAPpHfdsrgfao+1Dq8-ZqBLqnor0g2iuc0spQqNntN+W7-8i7vw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, Jun 29, 2025 at 9:22 AM Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)
<kuroda(dot)hayato(at)fujitsu(dot)com> wrote:
> Thanks everyone who are working on the bug. IIUC the remained task is
> to add code comments for avoiding the same mistake again described here:
>
> > 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.
>
> I've wrote a draft for that. How do you think?
Looks good to me. I'm going to push this if no objections.
------
Regards,
Alexander Korotkov
Supabase
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2025-07-18 10:45:06 | Re: Logical Replication of sequences |
| Previous Message | Alexander Korotkov | 2025-07-18 10:43:04 | Re: Slot's restart_lsn may point to removed WAL segment after hard restart unexpectedly |