Re: archive status ".ready" files may be created too early

From: "Bossart, Nathan" <bossartn(at)amazon(dot)com>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>
Cc: Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>, "x4mmm(at)yandex-team(dot)ru" <x4mmm(at)yandex-team(dot)ru>, "a(dot)lubennikova(at)postgrespro(dot)ru" <a(dot)lubennikova(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, "hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi" <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, "matsumura(dot)ryo(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <matsumura(dot)ryo(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, "masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com" <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: archive status ".ready" files may be created too early
Date: 2021-07-28 01:59:57
Message-ID: EBD2D598-B3B9-4923-A1B8-76A4AEC631B6@amazon.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 7/27/21, 6:05 PM, "Alvaro Herrera" <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> wrote:
> On 2021-Feb-19, Bossart, Nathan wrote:
>
>> 0002 adds logic for persisting the last notified segment through
>> crashes. This is needed because a poorly-timed crash could otherwise
>> cause us to skip marking segments as ready-for-archival altogether.
>> This file is only used for primary servers, as there exists a separate
>> code path for marking segments as ready-for-archive for standbys.
>
> I'm not sure I understand what's the reason not to store this value in
> pg_control; I feel like I'm missing something. Can you please explain?

Thanks for taking a look.

The only reason I can think of is that it could make back-patching
difficult. I don't mind working on a version of the patch that uses
pg_control. Back-patching this fix might be a stretch, anyway.

> There were some comments earlier in the thread about the maximum size of
> a record. As I recall, you can have records of arbitrary size if you
> have COMMIT with a large number of relation invalidation messages being
> included in the xlog record, or a large number of XIDs of
> subtransactions in the transaction. Spanning several segments is
> possible, AFAIU.

This is my understanding, too.

Nathan

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andres Freund 2021-07-28 02:23:42 Re: Autovacuum on partitioned table (autoanalyze)
Previous Message Michael Paquier 2021-07-28 01:32:25 Re: Replace l337sp34k in comments.