Postgres Pro
Downloads
Home   >   mailing lists

Thread: Re: [BUGS] PITR potentially broken in 9.2

Re: [BUGS] PITR potentially broken in 9.2

From
Tom Lane
Date:
I wrote:
> So apparently this is something we broke since Nov 18.  Don't know what
> yet --- any thoughts?

Further experimentation shows that reverting commit
ffc3172e4e3caee0327a7e4126b5e7a3c8a1c8cf makes it work.  So there's
something wrong/incomplete about that fix.

This is a bit urgent since we now have to consider whether to withdraw
9.2.2 and issue a hasty 9.2.3.  Do we have a regression here since
9.2.1, and if so how bad is it?
        regards, tom lane

Re: [BUGS] PITR potentially broken in 9.2

From
Andres Freund
Date:
On 2012-12-04 19:35:48 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> I wrote:
> > So apparently this is something we broke since Nov 18.  Don't know what
> > yet --- any thoughts?
>
> Further experimentation shows that reverting commit
> ffc3172e4e3caee0327a7e4126b5e7a3c8a1c8cf makes it work.  So there's
> something wrong/incomplete about that fix.

ISTM that the code should check ControlFile->backupEndRequired, not just
check for an invalid backupEndPoint. I haven't looked into the specific
issue though.

> This is a bit urgent since we now have to consider whether to withdraw
> 9.2.2 and issue a hasty 9.2.3.  Do we have a regression here since
> 9.2.1, and if so how bad is it?

Not sure.

Greetings,

Andres Freund

--Andres Freund                       http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training &
Services

Re: [BUGS] PITR potentially broken in 9.2

From
Jeff Janes
Date:
On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 4:35 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> I wrote:
>> So apparently this is something we broke since Nov 18.  Don't know what
>> yet --- any thoughts?
>
> Further experimentation shows that reverting commit
> ffc3172e4e3caee0327a7e4126b5e7a3c8a1c8cf makes it work.  So there's
> something wrong/incomplete about that fix.

I can't independently vouch for the correctness of that fix, but I can
vouch that there is so far no evidence that it is incorrect.

It is re-revealing an undesirable (but safe, as far as we know)
behavior that is present in 9.1.x but which was temporarily hidden by
a corruption-risk bug in 9.2.0 and 9.2.1.

>
> This is a bit urgent since we now have to consider whether to withdraw
> 9.2.2 and issue a hasty 9.2.3.  Do we have a regression here since
> 9.2.1, and if so how bad is it?

I don't think this is urgent.  The error-message issue in 9.1.6 and
9.2.2 is merely annoying, while the early-opening one in 9.2.0 and
9.2.1 seems fundamentally unsafe.

Cheers,

Jeff

Re: [BUGS] PITR potentially broken in 9.2

From
Simon Riggs
Date:
On 5 December 2012 00:35, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> I wrote:
>> So apparently this is something we broke since Nov 18.  Don't know what
>> yet --- any thoughts?
>
> Further experimentation shows that reverting commit
> ffc3172e4e3caee0327a7e4126b5e7a3c8a1c8cf makes it work.  So there's
> something wrong/incomplete about that fix.
>
> This is a bit urgent since we now have to consider whether to withdraw
> 9.2.2 and issue a hasty 9.2.3.  Do we have a regression here since
> 9.2.1, and if so how bad is it?

I'll look at this now.

-- Simon Riggs                   http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services