Re: [HACKERS] Broken hint bits (freeze) - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Vladimir Borodin
Subject Re: [HACKERS] Broken hint bits (freeze)
Date
Msg-id 0DFC2046-3025-465E-BBB8-1E55479A9B7D@simply.name
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] Broken hint bits (freeze)  (Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] Broken hint bits (freeze)
List pgsql-hackers

8 июня 2017 г., в 17:03, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> написал(а):

On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 6:49 PM, Dmitriy Sarafannikov
<dsarafannikov@yandex.ru> wrote:

Why didn't rsync made the copies on master and replica same?

Because rsync was running with —size-only flag.


IIUC the situation, the new WAL and updated pg_control file has been
copied, but not updated data files due to which the WAL has not been
replayed on replicas?  If so, why the pg_control file is copied, it's
size shouldn't have changed?

Because on master pg_upgrade moves $prefix/9.5/data/global/pg_control to $prefix/9.5/data/global/pg_control.old and creates new $prefix/9.6/data/global/pg_control without making hardlink. When running rsync from master to replica rsync sees $prefix/9.6/data/global/pg_control on master and checks if it is a hardlink. Since it is not a hardlink and $prefix/9.6/data/global/pg_control does not exist on replica rsync copies it. For data files the logic is different since they are hardlinks, corresponding files exist on replica and they are the same size.


--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com


--
May the force be with you…

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL 10 changes in exclusion constraints - did something change? CASE WHEN behavior oddity
Next
From: Dean Rasheed
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] PG10 Partitioned tables and relation_is_updatable()