Re: [Proposal] Fully WAL logged CREATE DATABASE - No Checkpoints

From: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>, Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com>, Ashutosh Sharma <ashu(dot)coek88(at)gmail(dot)com>, Maciek Sakrejda <m(dot)sakrejda(at)gmail(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: [Proposal] Fully WAL logged CREATE DATABASE - No Checkpoints
Date: 2022-08-04 23:12:04
Message-ID: 20220804231204.kcr6sfpshzvt5qi3@awork3.anarazel.de
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hi,

On 2022-08-04 19:01:06 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> And while I'm piling on, how is this bit in RelationCopyStorageUsingBuffer
> not completely broken?
>
> /* Read block from source relation. */
> srcBuf = ReadBufferWithoutRelcache(src->rd_locator, forkNum, blkno,
> RBM_NORMAL, bstrategy_src,
> permanent);
> srcPage = BufferGetPage(srcBuf);
> if (PageIsNew(srcPage) || PageIsEmpty(srcPage))
> {
> ReleaseBuffer(srcBuf);
> continue;
> }
>
> /* Use P_NEW to extend the destination relation. */
> dstBuf = ReadBufferWithoutRelcache(dst->rd_locator, forkNum, P_NEW,
> RBM_NORMAL, bstrategy_dst,
> permanent);
>
> You can't skip pages just because they are empty. Well, maybe you could
> if you were doing something to ensure that you zero-fill the corresponding
> blocks on the destination side. But this isn't doing that. It's using
> P_NEW for dstBuf, which will have the effect of silently collapsing out
> such pages. Maybe in isolation a heap could withstand that, but its
> indexes won't be happy (and I guess t_ctid chain links won't either).
>
> I think you should just lose the if() stanza. There's no optimization to
> be had here that's worth any extra complication.
>
> (This seems worth fixing before beta3, as it looks like a rather
> nasty data corruption hazard.)

Ugh, yes. And even with this fixed I think this should grow at least an
assertion that the block numbers match, probably even an elog.

Greetings,

Andres

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2022-08-04 23:14:08 Re: [Proposal] Fully WAL logged CREATE DATABASE - No Checkpoints
Previous Message Tom Lane 2022-08-04 23:11:13 Re: [Proposal] Fully WAL logged CREATE DATABASE - No Checkpoints