From: | Alexander Kukushkin <cyberdemn(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | bungina(at)gmail(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: pg_rewind WAL segments deletion pitfall |
Date: | 2022-08-26 08:57:25 |
Message-ID: | CAFh8B==ZdxqGvwg7tR6JvfERjUT1RTpxrdLAG=ygN+4wiTTTgQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-bugs pgsql-hackers |
Hello Kyotaro,
On Fri, 26 Aug 2022 at 10:04, Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>
wrote:
> > With archive_mode = always you can't reproduce it.
> > It is very rarely people set it to always in production due to the
> overhead.
> ...
> > The archive_mode has to be set to on and the archive_command should be
> > failing when you do pg_ctl -D oldprim stop
>
> Ah, I see.
>
> What I don't still understand is why pg_rewind doesn't work for the
> old primary in that case. When archive_mode=on, the old primary has
> the complete set of WAL files counting both pg_wal and its archive. So
> as the same to the privious repro, pg_rewind -c ought to work (but it
> uses its own archive this time). In that sense the proposed solution
> is still not needed in this case.
>
The pg_rewind finishes successfully. But as a result it removes some files
from pg_wal that are required to perform recovery because they are missing
on the new primary.
>
> A bit harder situation comes after the server successfully rewound; if
> the new primary goes so far that the old primary cannot connect. Even
> in that case, you can copy-in the requried WAL files or configure
> restore_command of the old pimary so that it finds required WAL files
> there.
>
Yes, we can do the backup of pg_wal before running pg_rewind, but it feels
very ugly, because we will also have to clean this "backup" after a
successful recovery.
It would be much better if pg_rewind didn't remove WAL files between the
last common checkpoint and diverged LSN in the first place.
Regards,
--
Alexander Kukushkin
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2022-08-26 23:59:06 | Re: BUG #17596: "invalid attribute number 11" when updating partitioned table with a MULTIEXPR_SUBLINK |
Previous Message | Kyotaro Horiguchi | 2022-08-26 08:04:32 | Re: pg_rewind WAL segments deletion pitfall |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | John Naylor | 2022-08-26 09:02:32 | Re: use SSE2 for is_valid_ascii |
Previous Message | Yuya Watari | 2022-08-26 08:53:34 | Re: [PoC] Reducing planning time when tables have many partitions |