| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, Sami Imseih <samimseih(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: WAL segment file descriptor leak on read errors can PANIC the server |
| Date: | 2026-10-05 22:27:24 |
| Message-ID: | asQkTCkor0XLYKnY@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Oct 05, 2026 at 09:20:27AM +0000, Bertrand Drouvot wrote:
> The comment above segment_close() says that ws_file shall be set to a negative
> number, while both this callback and XLogReaderFree() check for -1. I wonder if
> they should test >= 0 instead?
Probably just checking for negative is fine here, yes.
> Worth mentioning that this is intended for descriptors not managed by another
> cleanup mechanism, such as those returned by BasicOpenFile()? Otherwise, using
> it with OpenTransientFile() could result in segment_close() being called with a
> stale descriptor.
Hmm. How would you reword this comment?
I am also interested in hearing from Bharath about the latest version
of the patch posted.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2026-10-05 22:32:19 | Re: pg_resetwal: refuse to run when backup_label exists |
| Previous Message | Masahiko Sawada | 2026-10-05 22:26:46 | Re: Fix "unexpected logical decoding status change" error; from concurrent logical decoding activation |