On Wed, Apr 27, 2022 at 04:09:20PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> I am not sure that have any need to backpatch this change based on the
> unlikeliness of the problem, TBH. One thing that is itching me a bit,
> like Robert upthread, is that we don't check anymore that the newfile
> does not exist in the code paths because we never expect one. It is
> possible to use stat() for that. But access() within a simple
> assertion would be simpler? Say something like:
> Assert(access(path, F_OK) != 0 && errno == ENOENT);
>
> The case for basic_archive is limited as the comment of the patch
> states, but that would be helpful for the two calls in timeline.c and
> the one in xlog.c in the long-term. And this has no need to be part
> of fd.c, this can be added before the durable_rename() calls. What do
> you think?
Here is a new patch set with these assertions added. I think at least the
xlog.c change ought to be back-patched. The problem may be unlikely, but
AFAICT the possible consequences include WAL corruption.
--
Nathan Bossart
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
