Re: Incorrect handling of OOM in WAL replay leading to data loss - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Michael Paquier
Subject Re: Incorrect handling of OOM in WAL replay leading to data loss
Date
Msg-id ZRvAzUi9WzdE2tcp@paquier.xyz
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Incorrect handling of OOM in WAL replay leading to data loss  (Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>)
Responses Re: Incorrect handling of OOM in WAL replay leading to data loss
List pgsql-hackers
On Tue, Sep 26, 2023 at 03:48:07PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> By the way, anything that I am proposing here cannot be backpatched
> because of the infrastructure changes required in walreader.c, so I am
> going to create a second thread with something that could be
> backpatched (yeah, likely FATALs on OOM to stop recovery from doing
> something bad)..

Patch set is rebased as an effect of 6b18b3fe2c2f, that switched the
OOMs to fail harder now in xlogreader.c.  The patch set has nothing
new, except that 0001 is now a revert of 6b18b3fe2c2f to switch back
xlogreader.c to use soft errors on OOMs.

If there's no interest in this patch set after the next CF, I'm OK to
drop it.  The state of HEAD is at least correct in the OOM cases now.
--
Michael

Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: David Rowley
Date:
Subject: Re: pg16: XX000: could not find pathkey item to sort
Next
From: Laurenz Albe
Date:
Subject: Re: Trigger violates foreign key constraint