Release note fix for timeline item - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Bruce Momjian
Subject Release note fix for timeline item
Date
Msg-id 20131008142626.GJ22450@momjian.us
Whole thread Raw
Responses Re: Release note fix for timeline item
List pgsql-hackers
On Tue, Oct  8, 2013 at 01:25:30PM +0900, KONDO Mitsumasa wrote:
> (2013/10/08 10:35), Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >docs:  update release notes for 8.4.18, 9.0.14, 9.1.10, 9.2.5, 9.3.1
> Thank you for creating good release note. I have one comment.
>
> In 9.1 and 9.2 release note, Is "Improve WAL segment timeline
> handling during recovery" means commit which is "Install recycled
> WAL segments with current timeline ID during recovery"? This is not
> so simple problem fix.
> This bug caused failing PITR which is finished archive recovery on
> the way. When it occered, it seemed to finish archive recovery
> without problem.
>
> I think it is comparatively big problem, so we should write it in release note.
> Please fix it under following.
>
> +    <listitem>
> +     <para>
> +      Fix WAL segment timeline handling during recovery (Mitsumasa
> +      KONDO, Heikki Linnakangas)
> +     </para>
> +
> +    <para>
> +     When target timeline is up and executing restart point in archive recovery
> +     mode, archive recovery is failed on the way, because failing
> recycle of +    WAL. When this problem occurred, it seemed to finish
> success of archive +  recovery without problem.
> +    </para>
> +    </listitem>

First, I want to apologize for not completing the release notes earlier
so that others could review them.  I started working on the release
notes on Friday, but my unfamiliarity with the process and fear of
making a mistake caused many delays.  I have improved the documentation
on the process which will hopefully help next time.

Second, I have read the thread beind this patch:

    http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/51798552.2010102@vmware.com#51798552.2010102@vmware.com

You are right that there is alot of details skipped in the release note
text.  I have developed the attached patch which I think does a better
job.  Is it OK?

--
  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB                             http://enterprisedb.com

  + It's impossible for everything to be true. +

Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Kevin Grittner
Date:
Subject: Re: SSI freezing bug
Next
From: "Tomas Vondra"
Date:
Subject: Re: Re: custom hash-based COUNT(DISTINCT) aggregate - unexpectedly high memory consumption