Thread: Syncing pg_multixact directories
Hello hackers, I think we should be ensuring that directory entries for newly created multixact files are durable at checkpoint time. Please see attached.
Attachment
Hi, On 2020-09-23 13:45:51 +1200, Thomas Munro wrote: > I think we should be ensuring that directory entries for newly created > multixact files are durable at checkpoint time. Please see attached. Good catch! Probably that should probably be backpatched... Greetings, Andres Freund
On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 07:05:36PM -0700, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2020-09-23 13:45:51 +1200, Thomas Munro wrote: >> I think we should be ensuring that directory entries for newly created >> multixact files are durable at checkpoint time. Please see attached. > > Good catch! Probably that should probably be backpatched... +1. Passing that down to the SLRU layer is a nice thing to do. Were you planning to send a second patch here? The commit log generated mentions patch 1/2. -- Michael
Attachment
On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 4:09 PM Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote: > On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 07:05:36PM -0700, Andres Freund wrote: > > On 2020-09-23 13:45:51 +1200, Thomas Munro wrote: > >> I think we should be ensuring that directory entries for newly created > >> multixact files are durable at checkpoint time. Please see attached. > > > > Good catch! Probably that should probably be backpatched... > > +1. Passing that down to the SLRU layer is a nice thing to do. Were > you planning to send a second patch here? The commit log generated > mentions patch 1/2. Oh, that's just because I also have another patch, for master only, to go on top, but that's in another thread about SLRU fsync offloading. Sorry for the confusion.
On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 4:11 PM Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 4:09 PM Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 07:05:36PM -0700, Andres Freund wrote: > > > Good catch! Probably that should probably be backpatched... > > > > +1. Passing that down to the SLRU layer is a nice thing to do. Were > > you planning to send a second patch here? The commit log generated > > mentions patch 1/2. While back-patching I realised that 9.5 and 9.6 had the same problem for other SLRUs, so I updated the commit message accordingly and pushed. Thanks!