From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
---|---|
To: | Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com |
Subject: | Re: Possible corruption by CreateRestartPoint at promotion |
Date: | 2022-04-28 00:12:13 |
Message-ID: | Ymnb3XlT4YwJ5yOH@paquier.xyz |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Apr 27, 2022 at 11:09:45AM -0700, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 27, 2022 at 02:16:01PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> - if (ControlFile->state == DB_IN_ARCHIVE_RECOVERY &&
>> - ControlFile->checkPointCopy.redo < lastCheckPoint.redo)
>> - {
>> 7ff23c6 has removed the last call to CreateCheckpoint() outside the
>> checkpointer, meaning that there is one less concurrent race to worry
>> about, but I have to admit that this change, to update the control
>> file's checkPoint and checkPointCopy even if we don't check after
>> ControlFile->checkPointCopy.redo < lastCheckPoint.redo would make the
>> code less robust in ~14. So I am questioning whether a backpatch
>> is actually worth the risk here.
>
> IMO we should still check this before updating ControlFile to be safe.
Sure. Fine by me to play it safe.
--
Michael
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Euler Taveira | 2022-04-28 00:27:08 | trivial comment fix |
Previous Message | Thomas Munro | 2022-04-28 00:11:40 | Re: pgsql: Add contrib/pg_walinspect. |