From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
---|---|
To: | Anastasia Lubennikova <a(dot)lubennikova(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> |
Cc: | Michael Banck <michael(dot)banck(at)credativ(dot)de>, PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [patch] Fix checksum verification in base backups for zero page headers |
Date: | 2020-10-28 07:11:56 |
Message-ID: | 20201028071156.GK28445@paquier.xyz |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Oct 27, 2020 at 10:56:23PM +0300, Anastasia Lubennikova wrote:
> In case you need a second opinion on the remaining patch, it still looks
> good to me.
Thanks. The patch for v13 cannot use a macro, but one of the versions
of upthread would do just fine. I have been wondering about using the
new CheckBuffer() for the purpose of the retry to make it
concurrent-safe, but by looking at the code I think that we would run
unto problems when trying to open through smgr.c any relation file in
global/ as these require an invalid backend ID, and a WAL sender does
not satisfy that (see the assertion in GetRelationPath()). I have
been hesitating about increasing the number of retries though to give
more room to false positives. 20 perhaps? That would give 2s to a
disk to finish flushing a page that was caught in the middle of a
check with a sleep of 100ms, which sounds plenty enough.
--
Michael
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Laurenz Albe | 2020-10-28 07:18:08 | Re: Disable WAL logging to speed up data loading |
Previous Message | Fujii Masao | 2020-10-28 07:00:27 | Re: Global snapshots |