Re: cleanup patches for incremental backup

From: Alexander Lakhin <exclusion(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Matthias van de Meent <boekewurm+postgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: cleanup patches for incremental backup
Date: 2024-01-27 08:00:01
Message-ID: 8aed364e-f572-4561-b4fc-ff149067b670@gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

24.01.2024 20:46, Robert Haas wrote:
> This is weird. There's a little more detail in the log file,
> regress_log_002_blocks, e.g. from the first failure you linked:
>
> [11:18:20.683](96.787s) # before insert, summarized TLI 1 through 0/14E09D0
> [11:18:21.188](0.505s) # after insert, summarized TLI 1 through 0/14E0D08
> [11:18:21.326](0.138s) # examining summary for TLI 1 from 0/14E0D08 to 0/155BAF0
> # 1
> ...
> [11:18:21.349](0.000s) # got: 'pg_walsummary: error: could
> not open file "/home/nm/farm/gcc64/HEAD/pgsql.build/src/bin/pg_walsummary/tmp_check/t_002_blocks_node1_data/pgdata/pg_wal/summaries/0000000100000000014E0D0800000000155BAF0
> # 1.summary": No such file or directory'
>
> The "examining summary" line is generated based on the output of
> pg_available_wal_summaries(). The way that works is that the server
> calls readdir(), disassembles the filename into a TLI and two LSNs,
> and returns the result.

I'm discouraged by "\n1" in the file name and in the
"examining summary..." message.
regress_log_002_blocks from the following successful test run on the same
sungazer node contains:
[15:21:58.924](0.106s) # examining summary for TLI 1 from 0/155BAE0 to 0/155E750
[15:21:58.925](0.001s) ok 1 - WAL summary file exists

Best regards,
Alexander

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jelte Fennema-Nio 2024-01-27 09:24:12 Re: proposal: psql: show current user in prompt
Previous Message Bharath Rupireddy 2024-01-27 08:00:00 Re: Improve WALRead() to suck data directly from WAL buffers when possible