From: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Add a GUC check hook to ensure summarize_wal cannot be enabled when wal_level is minimal |
Date: | 2024-07-15 02:56:42 |
Message-ID: | 8a668c51-c6af-4744-a978-c6a2ce3b1d83@oss.nttdata.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2024/07/12 1:16, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 11, 2024 at 6:51 AM Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com> wrote:
>> It looks like the fast_forward field in WalSummarizerData is no longer necessary.
>>
>> So far, I haven't found any other issues with the patch.
>
> Thanks for reviewing. Regarding fast_forward, I think I had the idea
> in mind that perhaps it should be exposed by
> pg_get_wal_summarizer_state(),
Understood.
> but I didn't actually implement that.
> Thinking about it again, I think maybe it's fine to just remove it
> from the shared memory state, as this should be a rare scenario in
> practice. What is your opinion?
I don't think it's a rare scenario since summarize_wal can be enabled
after starting the server with wal_level=minimal. Therefore, I believe
such a configuration should be prohibited using a GUC check hook,
as my patch does. Alternatively, we should at least report or
log something when summarize_wal is enabled but fast_forward is also
enabled, so users can easily detect or investigate this unexpected situation.
I'm not sure if exposing fast_forward is necessary for that or not...
Regarding pg_get_wal_summarizer_state(), it is documented that
summarized_lsn indicates the ending LSN of the last WAL summary file
written to disk. However, with the patch, summarized_lsn advances
even when fast_forward is enabled. The documentation should be updated,
or summarized_lsn should be changed so it doesn't advance while
fast_forward is enabled.
On 2024/07/12 3:00, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 11, 2024 at 6:51 AM Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com> wrote:
>> So far, I haven't found any other issues with the patch.
>
> Here is a new version that removes the hunks you highlighted and also
> adds a test case.
Thanks for updating the patch! LGTM.
I have one small comment:
+# This test aims to validate that takeing an incremental backup fails when
"takeing" should be "taking"?
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
Advanced Computing Technology Center
Research and Development Headquarters
NTT DATA CORPORATION
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Thomas Munro | 2024-07-15 03:03:06 | Re: s/shm_mq_iovec/struct iovec/ |
Previous Message | Richard Guo | 2024-07-15 02:45:16 | Re: Wrong results with grouping sets |