Re: Fast promotion failure - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Amit Kapila
Subject Re: Fast promotion failure
Date
Msg-id 006e01ce4d6d$9c8503a0$d58f0ae0$@kapila@huawei.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Fast promotion failure  (Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi.kyotaro@lab.ntt.co.jp>)
Responses Re: Fast promotion failure  (Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi.kyotaro@lab.ntt.co.jp>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Friday, May 10, 2013 2:07 PM Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote:
> Thank you for noticing me of that.
> 
> > It seems to me, it is the same problem as discussed and fixed in
> below
> > thread.
> > http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/51894942.4080500@vmware.com
> >
> > Could you try with fixes given by heikki.
> 
> The first one settles the timeline transition problem for the
> present. Besides, I have no longer found any recovery failure
> except unrepeatable one shown below.
> 
> > C 2013-05-10 15:30:29.589 JST 9242 LOG:  restarted WAL streaming at
> 0/5000000 on timeline 2
> > B 2013-05-10 15:30:33.789 JST 9233 LOG:  restartpoint complete:
> (snip.)
> > B 2013-05-10 15:30:33.789 JST 9233 LOG:  recovery restart point at
> 0/3000028
> > B 2013-05-10 15:30:33.789 JST 9233 LOG:  checkpoint starting:
> > C 2013-05-10 15:32:32.170 JST 9242 FATAL:  could not receive data
> from WAL stream:

Is there any chance, that there is any network glitch caused this one time
error.
> I'm get confused, the patch seems to me ensureing the "first
> checkpoint after fast promotion is performed" to use the
> "correct, new, ThisTimeLineID".

What is your confusion?

With Regards,
Amit Kapila.




pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Simon Riggs
Date:
Subject: Concurrent HOT Update interference
Next
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: Re: [GENERAL] pg_upgrade fails, "mismatch of relation OID" - 9.1.9 to 9.2.4