Re: base backup vs. concurrent truncation

From: Aleksander Alekseev <aleksander(at)timescale(dot)com>
To: "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
Subject: Re: base backup vs. concurrent truncation
Date: 2023-05-09 09:14:28
Message-ID: CAJ7c6TNR-bXC7QBdV8bfUWeL6rbtqR=8KyYW8Ph33DS8ERU4Mg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hi Robert,

> 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?

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.

--
Best regards,
Aleksander Alekseev

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu) 2023-05-09 09:43:35 RE: [PoC] pg_upgrade: allow to upgrade publisher node
Previous Message Pavel Stehule 2023-05-09 09:07:02 Re: psql tests hangs