Re: prevent immature WAL streaming - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Andres Freund
Subject Re: prevent immature WAL streaming
Date
Msg-id 20210901031524.mdo6aayalmd5jxly@alap3.anarazel.de
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: prevent immature WAL streaming  (Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com>)
Responses Re: prevent immature WAL streaming  (Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota.ntt@gmail.com>)
Re: prevent immature WAL streaming  (Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Hi,

On 2021-09-01 11:34:34 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
> On 2021/09/01 0:53, Andres Freund wrote:
> > Of course, we need to be careful to not weaken WAL validity checking too
> > much. How about the following:
> > 
> > If we're "aborting" a continued record, we set XLP_FIRST_IS_ABORTED_PARTIAL on
> > the page at which we do so (i.e. the page after the valid end of the WAL).
> 
> When do you expect that XLP_FIRST_IS_ABORTED_PARTIAL is set? It's set
> when recovery finds a a partially-flushed segment-spanning record?
> But maybe we cannot do that (i.e., cannot overwrite the page) because
> the page that the flag is set in might have already been archived. No?

I was imagining that XLP_FIRST_IS_ABORTED_PARTIAL would be set in the "tail
end" of a partial record. I.e. if there's a partial record starting in the
successfully archived segment A, but the end of the record, in B, has not been
written to disk before a crash, we'd set XLP_FIRST_IS_ABORTED_PARTIAL at the
end of the valid data in B. Which could not have been archived yet, or we'd
not have a partial record.  So we should never need to set the flag on an
already archived page.

Greetings,

Andres Freund



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Kyotaro Horiguchi
Date:
Subject: Re: Possible missing segments in archiving on standby
Next
From: Greg Nancarrow
Date:
Subject: Re: Added schema level support for publication.