Re: base backup vs. concurrent truncation

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Aleksander Alekseev <aleksander(at)timescale(dot)com>
Cc: "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
Subject: Re: base backup vs. concurrent truncation
Date: 2023-05-11 16:18:03
Message-ID: CA+TgmoaUkTVWEBkn+0EX8Mg5Z6j=B2ruJ5v64gz4OdkDA=7M_w@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, May 9, 2023 at 5:14 AM Aleksander Alekseev
<aleksander(at)timescale(dot)com> wrote:
> > I admit I haven't done the legwork to nail down a test
> > case where everything comes together just right to show user-visible
> > breakage, but your success in finding one where it doesn't is no proof
> > of anything.
>
> Respectfully, what made you think this was my intention?

Honestly I have no idea what your intention was and didn't mean to
judge it. However, I don't think that troubleshooting the test case
you put together is the thing that I want to spend time on right now,
and I hope that it will still be possible to make some progress on the
underlying issue despite that.

> Quite the opposite, personally I am inclined to think that the problem
> does exist. In order to fix it however we need a test that reliably
> reproduces it first. Otherwise there is no way to figure out whether
> the fix was correct or not.
>
> What the experiment showed is that the test scenario you initially
> described is probably the wrong one for reasons yet to be understood
> and we need to come up with a better one.

Hopefully what Andres posted will help in this regard.

--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2023-05-11 16:46:03 Re: v16 regression - wrong query results with LEFT JOINs + join removal
Previous Message Robert Haas 2023-05-11 16:12:32 Re: running logical replication as the subscription owner