From: | "Drouvot, Bertrand" <bdrouvot(at)amazon(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Masahiko Sawada <masahiko(dot)sawada(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Add information to rm_redo_error_callback() |
Date: | 2020-08-17 15:47:13 |
Message-ID: | f46d4baa-51e3-a8aa-f1cb-bb00c3007468@amazon.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
Thanks for the feedback.
On 8/11/20 12:03 PM, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you can confirm the sender and know the content is safe.
>
>
>
> On Tue, 11 Aug 2020 at 15:30, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 11, 2020 at 02:45:50PM +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>>> Thank you for updating the patch!
>>>
>>> The patch looks good to me. I've set this patch as Ready for Committer.
>> + for (block_id = 0; block_id <= record->max_block_id; block_id++)
>> + {
>> + RelFileNode rnode;
>> + ForkNumber forknum;
>> + BlockNumber blknum;
>>
>> Doesn't this potentially create duplicate information in some of the
>> RM's desc() callbacks, and are we sure that the information provided
>> is worth having for all the RMs? As one example, gin_desc() looks at
>> some of the block information, so there are overlaps.
> Yeah, there is duplicate information in some RMs. I thought that we
> can change individual RM’s desc() functions to output the block
> information but as long as I see the pg_waldump outputs these are not
> annoying to me and many of RM’s desc() doesn’t show the block
> information.
Having this "pg_waldump" kind of format in this place
(rm_redo_error_callback()) ensures that we'll always see the same piece
of information during rm_redo.
I think it's good to guarantee that we'll always see the same piece of
information (should a new RM desc() be created in the future for
example), even if it could lead to some information overlap in some cases.
>> It may be
>> worth thinking about showing more information for has_image and
>> apply_image if a block is in_use?
> Yes. I’m okay with adding information for has_image and apply_image
> but IMHO I'm not sure how these shown in errcontext would help. If an
> error related to has_image or apply_image happens, errmsg should show
> something detailed information about FPI.
I am ok too, but I am also not sure that errcontext is the right place
for that.
Thanks
Bertrand
>
> Regards,
>
> --
> Masahiko Sawada http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
> PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Dave Page | 2020-08-17 15:55:13 | Re: EDB builds Postgres 13 with an obsolete ICU version |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2020-08-17 15:26:48 | Re: BUG #16583: merge join on tables with different DB collation behind postgres_fdw fails |