Re: [HACKERS] pg_upgrade may be mortally wounded

Tom, did we address this. I forgot.

> Bruce Momjian <maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> >> BTW, it seems to me that it is a good idea to kill and restart the
> >> postmaster immediately after pg_upgrade finishes. Otherwise there might
> >> be buffers in shared memory that do not reflect the actual contents of
> >> the corresponding pages of the relation files (now that pg_upgrade
> >> overwrote the files with other data).
>
> > Your issue with buffer cache is a major one. Clearly, this would be a
> > problem. However, it is my understanding that the buffer cache after
> > initdb would only contain system table info, so if they pg_upgrade after
> > that, there is no way they have bad stuf in the cache, right?
>
> Cached copies of system tables obviously are no problem, since
> pg_upgrade doesn't overwrite those. I'm concerned whether there can
> be cached copies of pages from user tables or indexes. Since we've
> just done a bunch of CREATE INDEXes (and a VACUUM, if my latest hack
> is right), it seems at least possible that this would happen.
>
> Now all those user tables will be empty (zero-length files), so there is
> nothing to cache. But the user indexes are *not* zero-length --- it looks
> like they are at least 2 pages long even when empty. So there seems
> to be a real risk of having a cached copy of one of the pages of a user
> index while pg_upgrade is overwriting the index file with new data...
>
> regards, tom lane
>

--
Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle
maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026