Re: base backup vs. concurrent truncation

From: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>
To: Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: base backup vs. concurrent truncation
Date: 2023-05-11 18:48:12
Message-ID: ZF04bPZXnuLm2/wX@tamriel.snowman.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Greetings,

* Greg Stark (stark(at)mit(dot)edu) wrote:
> Including the pre-truncation length in the wal record is the obviously
> solid approach and I none of the below is a good substitution for it.

I tend to agree with the items mentioned in Andres's recent email on
this thread too in terms of improving the WAL logging around this.

> On Tue, 25 Apr 2023 at 13:30, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> > It isn't - but the alternatives aren't great either. It's not that easy to hit
> > this scenario, so I think something along these lines is more palatable than
> > adding a pass through the entire data directory.
>
> Doing one pass through the entire data directory on startup before
> deciding the directory is consistent doesn't sound like a crazy idea.

We're already making a pass through the entire data directory on
crash-restart (and fsync'ing everything too), which includes when
restoring from backup. See src/backend/access/transam/xlog.c:5155
Extending that to check for oddities like segments following a not-1GB
segment certainly seems like a good idea to me.

> It's pretty easy to imagine bugs in backup software that leave out
> files in the middle of tables -- some of us don't even have to
> imagine...

Yup.

> Similarly checking for a stray next segment whenever extending a file
> to maximum segment size seems like a reasonable thing to check for
> too.

Yeah, that definitely seems like a good idea. Extending a relation is
already expensive and we've taken steps to deal with that and so
detecting that the file we were expecting to create is already there
certainly seems like a good idea and I wouldn't expect (?) to add a lot
of extra time in the normal case.

> These kinds of checks are the kind of paranoia that catches filesystem
> bugs, backup software bugs, cron jobs, etc that we don't even know to
> watch for.

Agreed, and would also help in cases where such a situation already
exists out there somewhere and which no amount of new WAL records would
make go away..

Thanks,

Stephen

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Pavel Stehule 2023-05-11 19:06:01 Re: psql tests hangs
Previous Message Tom Lane 2023-05-11 18:44:39 Re: psql tests hangs