Re: [HACKERS] WAL logging problem in 9.4.3?

From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(dot)dunstan(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] WAL logging problem in 9.4.3?
Date: 2018-07-12 13:51:33
Message-ID: aac8e19b-9159-e473-77be-53f80b658190@2ndQuadrant.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 07/10/2018 11:32 PM, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 05:35:58PM +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>> Thanks for picking this up!
>>
>> (I hope this gets through the email filters this time, sending a shell
>> script seems to be difficult. I also trimmed the CC list, if that helps.)
>>
>> On 04/07/18 07:59, Michael Paquier wrote:
>>> Hence I propose the patch attached which disables the TRUNCATE and COPY
>>> optimizations for two cases, which are the ones actually causing
>>> problems. One solution has been presented by Simon here for COPY, which
>>> is to disable the optimization when there are no blocks on a relation
>>> with wal_level = minimal:
>>> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CANP8+jKN4V4MJEzFN_iEtdZ+1oM=YETxvmuu1YK4UMXQY2gaGw@mail.gmail.com
>>> For back-patching, I find that really appealing.
>> This fails in the case that there are any WAL-logged changes to the table
>> while the COPY is running. That can happen at least if the table has an
>> INSERT trigger, that performs operations on the same table, and the COPY
>> fires the trigger. That scenario is covered by the little bash script I
>> posted earlier in this thread
>> (https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/55AFC302.1060805%40iki.fi) Attached
>> is a new version of that script, updated to make it work with v11.
> Thanks for the pointer. My tap test has been covering two out of the
> three scenarios you have in your script. I have been able to convert
> the extra as the attached, and I have added as well an extra test with
> TRUNCATE triggers. So it seems to me that we want to disable the
> optimization if any type of trigger are defined on the relation copied
> to as it could be possible that these triggers work on the blocks copied
> as well, for any BEFORE/AFTER and STATEMENT/ROW triggers. What do you
> think?
>

Yeah, this seems like the only sane approach.

cheers

andrew

--
Andrew Dunstan https://www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Heikki Linnakangas 2018-07-12 14:12:21 Re: [HACKERS] WAL logging problem in 9.4.3?
Previous Message Andrew Dunstan 2018-07-12 13:44:05 Re: Vacuum: allow usage of more than 1GB of work mem