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
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 |