> On 26 May 2026, at 20:12, Tomas Vondra <tomas@vondra.me> wrote:
> I suppose this means we should not be updating the checksum state
> without emitting the barrier? I think all other places do that.
Good catch, it's indeed a bug, any state change must emit a procsignalbarrier
to maintain cluster consistency. I ended up writing a test for this very case
as well.
> I'm still not sure if it really is an issue or just an annoyance,
> because I've not been able to find a case where it'd lead to checksum
> failures (or obviously incorrect final state after recovery).
I've tried to get it to reach an incorrect end state but failed, but I do agree
that maybe we need an improved locking protocol around state updates. Need to
spend some more time thinking about this.
> I still don't understand why this needs DELAY_CHKPT_START ...
Having stared at this for some time, and going over old threads, I think this
is a mistake. AFAICT though it cannot cause any error, so I'd lean towards
erring on the safe side by leaving as is and looking at removing in 20. What
do you think?
> I also noticed a couple minor comment issues, per attached patch (this
> may need pgindent).
I ended up splitting this into two, one for the comment fixes and one for the
data type change.
I propose applying the three patches below to v19 to fix the promotion issue
before we wrap beta1.
--
Daniel Gustafsson
