| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Drouvot, Bertrand" <bdrouvot(at)amazon(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: prion failed with ERROR: missing chunk number 0 for toast value 14334 in pg_toast_2619 |
| Date: | 2021-06-30 06:29:41 |
| Message-ID: | YNwPVbXWUl3dw+1x@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, May 18, 2021 at 01:04:18PM +0200, Drouvot, Bertrand wrote:
> On 5/17/21 8:56 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
>> On 2021-05-17 20:14:40 +0200, Drouvot, Bertrand wrote:
>>> I was also wondering if:
>>>
>>> * We should keep the old behavior in case pg_resetwal -x is being used
>>> without -u?
(The proposed patch does not set an arbitrary oldestXID
>>> anymore in
case -x is used)
>> I don't think we should. I don't see anything in the old behaviour worth
>> maintaining.
So, pg_resetwal logic with the oldest XID assignment is causing some
problem here. This open item is opened for some time now and it is
idle for a couple of weeks. It looks that we have some solution
drafted, to be able to move forward, with the following things (no
patches yet):
- More robustness safety checks in procarray.c.
- A rework of oldestXid in pg_resetwal.
Is there somebody working on that?
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Dilip Kumar | 2021-06-30 06:33:55 | Re: Teach pg_receivewal to use lz4 compression |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2021-06-30 06:15:10 | Dependency to logging in jsonapi.c |