Re: fix "Success" error messages

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: TAKATSUKA Haruka <harukat(at)sraoss(dot)co(dot)jp>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Cc: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
Subject: Re: fix "Success" error messages
Date: 2019-11-21 09:40:36
Message-ID: 5457fd8b-67e1-d399-b4d6-075776fed71a@2ndquadrant.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2019-11-21 02:42, TAKATSUKA Haruka wrote:
> FATAL: could not access status of transaction ..
> DETAIL: Could not read from file (pg_clog/.... or pg_xact/....) ...: Success.
>
> This error has caused the server to fail to start with recovery.
> I got a report that it happend repeatedly at the newly generated
> standby cluster. I gave them advice to comfirm the low level server
> environment.
>
> However, in addition to improving the message, should we retry to read
> the rest of the data in the case reading too few bytes?
> What about a limited number of retries instead of a complete loop?

If we thought that would help, there are probably hundreds or more other
places where we read files that would need to be fixed up in the same
way. That doesn't seem reasonable.

Also, it is my understanding that short reads can in practice only
happen if the underlying storage is having a serious problem, so
retrying wouldn't actually help much.

--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Amit Langote 2019-11-21 09:42:10 Re: CVE-2017-7484-induced bugs, or, btree cmp functions are not leakproof?
Previous Message Konstantin Knizhnik 2019-11-21 09:31:23 Re: Why overhead of SPI is so large?