On Wed, Oct 13, 2021 at 10:58 PM Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> wrote:
>
> On 2021-Oct-13, Amul Sul wrote:
>
> > I have one more question, regarding the need for other global
> > variables i.e. abortedRecPtr. (Sorry for coming back after so long.)
> >
> > Instead of abortedRecPtr point, isn't enough to write
> > overwrite-contrecord at XLogCtl->lastReplayedEndRecPtr? I think both
> > are pointing to the same location then can't we use
> > lastReplayedEndRecPtr instead of abortedRecPtr to write
> > overwrite-contrecord and remove need of extra global variable, like
> > attached?
>
> I'm a bit fuzzy on the difference "the end+1" and "the start of the next
> record". Are they always the same? We do have XLogRecPtrToBytePos()
> and XLogBytePosToEndRecPtr() to convert unadorned XLogRecPtr values to
> "usable byte positions", which suggests to me that the proposed patch
> may fail if end+1 is a page or segment boundary.
>
Yes, you are correct, that could be a possible failure.
How about calculating that from the lastReplayedEndRecPtr by
converting it first to "usable byte positions" and then recalculating
the record pointer from that, like attached?
> The other difference is that abortedRecPtr is set if we fail to read a
> record, but XLogCtl->lastReplayedEndRecPtr is set even if we read the
> record successfully. So you'd have need a bool flag that the overwrite
> contrecord record needs to be written. Your patch is using the fact
> that missingContrecPtr is non-invalid as such a flag ... I can't see
> anything wrong with that. So maybe your patch is okay in this aspect.
>
> > You might wonder why I am so concerned about the global variable. The
> > reason is that I am working on another thread[1] where we are trying
> > to club all the WAL write operations that happen at the end of
> > StartupXLOG into a separate function. In the future, we might want to
> > allow executing this function from other processes (e.g.
> > Checkpointer). For that, we need to remove the dependency of those WAL
> > write operations having on the global variables which are mostly valid
> > in the startup process.
>
> Seems a fine goal.
Thanks for looking at the patch.
Regards,
Amul
