Re: base backup vs. concurrent truncation - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: base backup vs. concurrent truncation
Date
Msg-id CA+TgmoaUkTVWEBkn+0EX8Mg5Z6j=B2ruJ5v64gz4OdkDA=7M_w@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: base backup vs. concurrent truncation  (Aleksander Alekseev <aleksander@timescale.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Tue, May 9, 2023 at 5:14 AM Aleksander Alekseev
<aleksander@timescale.com> wrote:
> > I admit I haven't done the legwork to nail down a test
> > case where everything comes together just right to show user-visible
> > breakage, but your success in finding one where it doesn't is no proof
> > of anything.
>
> Respectfully, what made you think this was my intention?

Honestly I have no idea what your intention was and didn't mean to
judge it. However, I don't think that troubleshooting the test case
you put together is the thing that I want to spend time on right now,
and I hope that it will still be possible to make some progress on the
underlying issue despite that.

> Quite the opposite, personally I am inclined to think that the problem
> does exist. In order to fix it however we need a test that reliably
> reproduces it first. Otherwise there is no way to figure out whether
> the fix was correct or not.
>
> What the experiment showed is that the test scenario you initially
> described is probably the wrong one for reasons yet to be understood
> and we need to come up with a better one.

Hopefully what Andres posted will help in this regard.

--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: running logical replication as the subscription owner
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: v16 regression - wrong query results with LEFT JOINs + join removal