Re: Possible corruption by CreateRestartPoint at promotion - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Kyotaro Horiguchi
Subject Re: Possible corruption by CreateRestartPoint at promotion
Date
Msg-id 20220428.114357.476887320744154615.horikyota.ntt@gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Possible corruption by CreateRestartPoint at promotion  (Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota.ntt@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: Possible corruption by CreateRestartPoint at promotion  (Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>)
List pgsql-hackers
At Thu, 28 Apr 2022 09:12:13 +0900, Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote in 
> On Wed, Apr 27, 2022 at 11:09:45AM -0700, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 27, 2022 at 02:16:01PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> >> -   if (ControlFile->state == DB_IN_ARCHIVE_RECOVERY &&
> >> -       ControlFile->checkPointCopy.redo < lastCheckPoint.redo)
> >> -   {
> >> 7ff23c6 has removed the last call to CreateCheckpoint() outside the
> >> checkpointer, meaning that there is one less concurrent race to worry
> >> about, but I have to admit that this change, to update the control
> >> file's checkPoint and checkPointCopy even if we don't check after
> >> ControlFile->checkPointCopy.redo < lastCheckPoint.redo would make the
> >> code less robust in ~14.  So I am questioning whether a backpatch
> >> is actually worth the risk here.
> > 
> > IMO we should still check this before updating ControlFile to be safe.
> 
> Sure.  Fine by me to play it safe.

Why do we consider concurrent check/restart points here while we don't
consider the same for ControlFile->checkPointCopy?

regards.

-- 
Kyotaro Horiguchi
NTT Open Source Software Center



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Kyotaro Horiguchi
Date:
Subject: Re: Possible corruption by CreateRestartPoint at promotion
Next
From: Kyotaro Horiguchi
Date:
Subject: Re: Possible corruption by CreateRestartPoint at promotion