| From: | "Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)" <kuroda(dot)hayato(at)fujitsu(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | 'Amit Kapila' <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | 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: | 2025-06-29 06:22:30 |
| Message-ID: | OSCPR01MB1496634CF3BFEC3A491CF8111F547A@OSCPR01MB14966.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Dear hackers,
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?
Best regards,
Hayato Kuroda
FUJITSU LIMITED
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| 0001-Update-comment-for-last_saved_restart_lsn.patch | application/octet-stream | 1.8 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2025-06-29 10:43:41 | Re: Collation & ctype method table, and extension hooks |
| Previous Message | Ian Lawrence Barwick | 2025-06-29 02:16:10 | Re: regdatabase |