Re: BUG: *FF WALs under 9.2 (WAS: .ready files appearing on slaves)

From: Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com>
Cc: Jehan-Guillaume de Rorthais <jgdr(at)dalibo(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: BUG: *FF WALs under 9.2 (WAS: .ready files appearing on slaves)
Date: 2014-10-09 06:26:41
Message-ID: CAB7nPqQpOyaLAH6ghg9K8uObc6KvYnDb9KvUfKPwm1ssfsbR2w@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 10:00 PM, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>
wrote:

> The additional process at promotion sounds like a good idea, I'll try to
> get a patch done tomorrow. This would result as well in removing the
> XLogArchiveForceDone stuff. Either way, not that I have been able to
> reproduce the problem manually, things can be clearly solved.
>
Please find attached two patches aimed to fix this issue and to improve the
situation:
- 0001 prevents the apparition of those phantom WAL segment file by
ensuring that when a node is in recovery it will remove it whatever its
status in archive_status. This patch is the real fix, and should be applied
down to 9.2.
- 0002 is a patch implementing Heikki's idea of enforcing all the segment
files present in pg_xlog to have their status to .done, marking them for
removal. When looking at the code, I finally concluded that Fujii-san's
point, about marking in all cases as .done segment files that have been
fully streamed, actually makes more sense to not be backward. This patch
would actually not be mandatory for back-patching, but it makes the process
more robust IMO.

I imagine that it would be nice to get those things fixed before the next
minor release.
Regards,
--
Michael

Attachment Content-Type Size
0001-Fix-apparition-of-archive-status-files-of-.ready.patch text/x-diff 1.6 KB
0002-Enforce-all-WAL-segment-files-to-be-marked-as-.done-.patch text/x-diff 4.0 KB

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Geoghegan 2014-10-09 06:27:24 Re: INSERT ... ON CONFLICT {UPDATE | IGNORE}
Previous Message Simon Riggs 2014-10-09 05:49:47 Re: INSERT ... ON CONFLICT {UPDATE | IGNORE}