From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> |
Subject: | Re: [BUG] pg_basebackup from disconnected standby fails |
Date: | 2016-10-27 16:16:42 |
Message-ID: | CA+Tgmob44oaYJFGAZ6qYsrXLJo55bofRdraF7X_7U31NNXqNcw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 9:05 AM, Michael Paquier
<michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 7:16 PM, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> This can create problem if the checkpoint record spans across multiple
>> segments, because you are updating minRecoveryPoint to start of
>> checkpoint record. We need to update it to end+1 of checkpoint
>> record. Please find attached patch which takes care of same.
>
> I gave up counting my mistakes on this thread, thanks. You should
> update the comments of XLogCtlData for the new field
> lastCheckPointEndPtr so as it is not used by the background writer but
> when creating a new restart point to define the minimum recovery
> point.
I committed and back-patched this with some additional work on the
comments, but I don't understand this remark. That comment seems like
it should refer to the checkpointer in modern branches, but isn't that
point independent of this patch?
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2016-10-27 16:24:31 | Re: Issues with building snap packages and psql |
Previous Message | Claudio Freire | 2016-10-27 15:54:26 | Re: CLUSTER, reform_and_rewrite_tuple(), and parallelism |