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

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
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 23:20:16
Message-ID: 3684408.1659655216@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> On 2022-08-04 19:01:06 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> (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.

Yeah, the assumption that P_NEW would automatically match the source block
was making me itchy too. An explicit test-and-elog seems worth the
cycles.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andres Freund 2022-08-04 23:59:22 Re: [Proposal] Fully WAL logged CREATE DATABASE - No Checkpoints
Previous Message Tom Lane 2022-08-04 23:14:08 Re: [Proposal] Fully WAL logged CREATE DATABASE - No Checkpoints