Re: Different compression methods for FPI

From: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
To: Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com>
Cc: Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andrey Borodin <x4mmm(at)yandex-team(dot)ru>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: Different compression methods for FPI
Date: 2021-06-28 07:36:42
Message-ID: YNl8CqZfArWqXbJ8@paquier.xyz
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Sat, Jun 26, 2021 at 06:11:26PM -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> Curious. I found that before a4d75c86bf, there was an issue without the
> "extra" patches.

Is this issue different than the XID problem not matching when using
wal_level = minimal in test 011_crash_recovery.pl? I am not sure to
understand if you are

> I have no idea why that patch changes the behavior, but before a4d7, this patch
> series failed like:

Not seeing the link here. 011_crash_recovery.pl has nothing to do
with extended statistics, normally.

> I think Andrey has been saying that since this already fails with PGLZ wal
> compression, we could consider this to be a pre-existing problem. I'm not
> thrilled with that interpretation, but it's not wrong.

Removing "allows_streaming => 1" in 011_crash_recovery.pl is enough to
make the test fail on HEAD. And the test fails equally without or
without any changes related to wal_compression, so adding or removing
options to wal_compression is not going to change anything with that.
There is simply no relationship I can spot, though I may be missing of
course an argument here. Let's just discuss this recovery issue where
it should be discussed (these are patches 0002 and 0003 in the patch
v9 sent upthread):
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20210308.173242.463790587797836129.horikyota.ntt%40gmail.com
--
Michael

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael Paquier 2021-06-28 07:52:12 Re: Preventing abort() and exit() calls in libpq
Previous Message Peter Geoghegan 2021-06-28 06:39:48 Re: What is "wraparound failure", really?