Re: [HACKERS] Should buffer of initialization fork have aBM_PERMANENT flag - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: [HACKERS] Should buffer of initialization fork have aBM_PERMANENT flag
Date
Msg-id CA+TgmoZYOzNzYE5iYXCCJ_xXMeN00fej=QS02D9P70eCbqJ8HA@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] Should buffer of initialization fork have aBM_PERMANENT flag  (Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] Should buffer of initialization fork have aBM_PERMANENT flag  (Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 7:14 PM, Michael Paquier
<michael.paquier@gmail.com> wrote:
> (Adding Robert in CC.)
>
> On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 4:34 AM, Wang Hao <whberet@gmail.com> wrote:
>> An unlogged table has an initialization fork. The initialization fork does
>> not have an BM_PERMANENT flag when get a buffer.
>> In checkpoint (not shutdown or end of recovery), it will not write to disk.
>> after a crash recovery, the page of initialization fork will not correctly,
>> then make the main fork not correctly too.
>
> For init forks the flush need absolutely to happen, so that's really
> not good. We ought to fix BufferAlloc() appropriately here.

I agree with that, but I propose the attached version instead.  It
seems cleaner to have the entire test for setting BM_PERMANENT in one
place rather than splitting it up as you did.

I believe this sets a record for the longest-lived data corruption bug
in a commit made by me.  Six years and change, woohoo.  :-(

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Add amcheck extension to contrib.
Next
From: Michael Meskes
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Two phase commit in ECPG