From: | Amul Sul <sulamul(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, "Bossart, Nathan" <bossartn(at)amazon(dot)com>, Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>, "masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com" <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, "mengjuan(dot)cmj(at)alibaba-inc(dot)com" <mengjuan(dot)cmj(at)alibaba-inc(dot)com>, "Jakub(dot)Wartak(at)tomtom(dot)com" <Jakub(dot)Wartak(at)tomtom(dot)com>, Ryo Matsumura <matsumura(dot)ryo(at)fujitsu(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: prevent immature WAL streaming |
Date: | 2021-11-26 04:24:30 |
Message-ID: | CAAJ_b97Jwd=btx95mF9e8zaeWcwpbJ257S5y5n2j4iRniuMogg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Nov 26, 2021 at 1:42 AM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>
> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> writes:
> > On 2021-Nov-25, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Really? AFAICS the WAL record contains the correct value, or at least
> >> we should define that one as being correct, for precisely this reason.
>
> > I don't know what is the correct value for a record that comes exactly
> > after the page header. But here's a patch that fixes the problem; and
> > if a standby replays WAL written by an unpatched primary, it will be
> > able to read past instead of dying of FATAL.
>
> Meh ... but given the simplicity of the write-side fix, maybe changing
> it is appropriate.
>
> However, this seems too forgiving:
>
> + if (xlrec->overwritten_lsn != state->overwrittenRecPtr &&
> + xlrec->overwritten_lsn - SizeOfXLogShortPHD != state->overwrittenRecPtr &&
> + xlrec->overwritten_lsn - SizeOfXLogLongPHD != state->overwrittenRecPtr)
>
Unless I am missing something, I am not sure why need this adjustment
if we are going to use state->currRecPtr value which doesn't seem to
be changing at all. AFAICU, state->currRecPtr will be unchanged value
whether going to set overwrittenRecPtr or abortedRecPtr. Do primary
and standby see state->currRecPtr differently, I guess not, never?
Regards,
Amul
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Greg Nancarrow | 2021-11-26 04:34:33 | Re: Windows build warnings |
Previous Message | Greg Nancarrow | 2021-11-26 04:07:36 | Re: row filtering for logical replication |