Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 12:36 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> I understand it, and I don't like it one bit. �I haven't caught up on
>> this thread yet, but I think the only acceptable solution is one that
>> leaves the slave in the *same* state as the master.
> I might be missing something here, but I don't see how you're going to
> manage that. In Jeff's original example, he crashes the database
> after extending the relation but before initializing and writing the
> new page. I believe that at that point no XLOG has been written yet,
> so the relation has been extended but there is no WAL to be sent to
> the standby. So now you have the exact situation you're concerned
> about - the relation has been extended on the master but not on the
> standby.
You're right that we cannot prevent that situation --- or at least,
the cure would be worse than the disease. (The cure would be to
XLOG the extension action, obviously, but then out-of-disk-space
has to be a PANIC condition.) However, it doesn't follow that it's
a good idea to make copy_relation_data *intentionally* make the slave
and master different.
I've caught up on the thread now, and I think that fix2 (skip logging
the page) is extremely dangerous and has little if anything in its
favor. fix1 seems reasonable given the structure of the page validity
checks.
However, what about Jeff's original comment
: On second thought, why are PageSetLSN and PageSetTLI being called from
: log_newpage(), anyway?
I think it is appropriate to be setting the LSN/TLI in the case of a
page that's been constructed by the caller as part of the WAL-logged
action, but doing so in copy_relation_data seems rather questionable.
We certainly didn't change the source page so changing its LSN seems
rather wrong --- wouldn't it be better to just copy the source pages
with their original LSNs? So perhaps the best fix is to add a bool
parameter to log_newpage telling it whether to update LSN/TLI, and
have copy_relation_data pass false while the other callers pass true.
(Although I guess we'd need to propagate that flag in the WAL record,
so maybe this is more trouble than its worth.)
regards, tom lane
