> 12 янв. 2021 г., в 13:49, Noah Misch написал(а):
>
> What do you think of abandoning slru-truncate-t-insurance entirely? As of
> https://postgr.es/m/20200330052809.gb2324...@rfd.leadboat.com I liked the idea
> behind it, despite its complicating the system for hackers and DBAs. The
>
On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 11:22:05AM +0500, Andrey Borodin wrote:
> I'm marking patch as ready for committer.
Thanks.
> I can't tell should we backpatch insurance patch or not: it potentially fixes
> unknown bugs, and potentially contains unknown bugs. I can't reason because
> of such
> 10 янв. 2021 г., в 14:43, Noah Misch написал(а):
>
>> Can you please send revised patches with fixes?
>
> Attached.
>
>
I'm marking patch as ready for committer.
I can't tell should we backpatch insurance patch or not: it potentially fixes
unknown bugs, and potentially contains
On Sun, Jan 10, 2021 at 11:44:14AM +0500, Andrey Borodin wrote:
> > 10 янв. 2021 г., в 03:15, Noah Misch написал(а):
> >
> > No; it deletes the most recent ~1B and leaves the older segments. An
> > exception is multixact, as described in the commit message and the patch's
> > change to a
> 10 янв. 2021 г., в 03:15, Noah Misch написал(а):
>
> No; it deletes the most recent ~1B and leaves the older segments. An
> exception is multixact, as described in the commit message and the patch's
> change to a comment in TruncateMultiXact().
Thanks for clarification.
One more thing:
On Sat, Jan 09, 2021 at 08:25:39PM +0500, Andrey Borodin wrote:
> > 9 янв. 2021 г., в 15:17, Noah Misch написал(а):
> >> I'm a little bit afraid that this kind of patch can hide bugs (while
> >> potentially saving some users data). Besides this patch seems like a
> >> useful precaution. Maybe
> 9 янв. 2021 г., в 15:17, Noah Misch написал(а):
>
>> This
>> int diff_max = ((QUEUE_MAX_PAGE + 1) / 2) - 1,
>> seems to be functional equivalent of
>> int diff_max = ((QUEUE_MAX_PAGE - 1) / 2),
>
> Do you think one conveys the concept better than the other?
I see now that next comments
On Wed, Jan 06, 2021 at 11:28:36AM +0500, Andrey Borodin wrote:
> First patch fixes a bug with possible SLRU truncation around wrapping point
> too early.
> Basic idea of the patch is "If we want to delete a range we must be eligible
> to delete it's beginning and ending".
> So to test if page
> 1 янв. 2021 г., в 23:05, Andrey Borodin написал(а):
>
> I've found this thread in CF looking for something to review.
We discussed patches with Noah offlist. I'm resending summary to list.
There are two patches:
1. slru-truncate-modulo-v5.patch
2. slru-truncate-t-insurance-v4.patch
It
On Sat, Jan 02, 2021 at 12:31:45PM +0500, Andrey Borodin wrote:
> Do I understand correctly that this is bugfix that needs to be back-patched?
The slru-truncate-modulo patch fixes a bug. The slru-truncate-t-insurance
patch does not. Neither _needs_ to be back-patched, though I'm proposing to
> 2 янв. 2021 г., в 01:35, Noah Misch написал(а):
> There's no
> other connection to this thread, and one can review patches on this thread
> without studying commit c732c3f.
OK, thanks!
Do I understand correctly that this is bugfix that needs to be back-patched?
Thus we should not refactor
On Fri, Jan 01, 2021 at 11:05:29PM +0500, Andrey Borodin wrote:
> I've found this thread in CF looking for something to review.
Thanks for taking a look.
> > 9 нояб. 2020 г., в 09:53, Noah Misch написал(а):
> >
> > Rebased both patches, necessitated by commit c732c3f (a repair of commit
> >
Hi Noah!
I've found this thread in CF looking for something to review.
> 9 нояб. 2020 г., в 09:53, Noah Misch написал(а):
>
> Rebased both patches, necessitated by commit c732c3f (a repair of commit
> dee663f). As I mentioned on another branch of the thread, I'd be content if
> someone
On Wed, Oct 28, 2020 at 09:01:59PM -0700, Noah Misch wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 29, 2020 at 10:34:33PM -0700, Noah Misch wrote:
> > On Mon, May 25, 2020 at 12:00:33AM -0700, Noah Misch wrote:
> > > [last non-rebase change]
> >
> > Rebased the second patch. The first patch did not need a rebase.
>
>
On Sat, Aug 29, 2020 at 10:34:33PM -0700, Noah Misch wrote:
> On Mon, May 25, 2020 at 12:00:33AM -0700, Noah Misch wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 06, 2020 at 09:18:47PM -0700, Noah Misch wrote:
> > > On Mon, Apr 06, 2020 at 02:46:09PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > > > Noah Misch writes:
> > > > > On Wed,
On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 03:06:40PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 06, 2020 at 08:14:21PM -0700, Noah Misch wrote:
> > http://cfbot.cputube.org/patch_29_2026.log applies the two patches in the
> > wrong order. For this CF entry, ignore it.
>
> OK, thanks. This is a bug fix, so I
On Sun, Sep 06, 2020 at 08:14:21PM -0700, Noah Misch wrote:
> http://cfbot.cputube.org/patch_29_2026.log applies the two patches in the
> wrong order. For this CF entry, ignore it.
OK, thanks. This is a bug fix, so I have moved that to the next CF
for now. Noah, would you prefer more reviews
On Mon, Sep 07, 2020 at 11:06:12AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 29, 2020 at 10:34:33PM -0700, Noah Misch wrote:
> > Rebased the second patch. The first patch did not need a rebase.
>
> It looks like a new rebase is needed, the CF bot is complaining here.
On Sat, Aug 29, 2020 at 10:34:33PM -0700, Noah Misch wrote:
> Rebased the second patch. The first patch did not need a rebase.
It looks like a new rebase is needed, the CF bot is complaining here.
--
Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Mon, May 25, 2020 at 12:00:33AM -0700, Noah Misch wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 06, 2020 at 09:18:47PM -0700, Noah Misch wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 06, 2020 at 02:46:09PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > > Noah Misch writes:
> > > > On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 04:42:31PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > > >> So I think
On Mon, Apr 06, 2020 at 09:18:47PM -0700, Noah Misch wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 06, 2020 at 02:46:09PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Noah Misch writes:
> > > On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 04:42:31PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > >> So I think what we're actually trying to accomplish here is to
> > >> ensure that
On Mon, Apr 06, 2020 at 02:46:09PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Noah Misch writes:
> > On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 04:42:31PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> So I think what we're actually trying to accomplish here is to
> >> ensure that instead of deleting up to half of the SLRU space
> >> before the
Noah Misch writes:
> On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 04:42:31PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> So I think what we're actually trying to accomplish here is to
>> ensure that instead of deleting up to half of the SLRU space
>> before the cutoff, we delete up to half-less-one-segment.
>> Maybe it should be
On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 04:42:31PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Noah Misch writes:
> > On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 06:04:52PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> 3. It feels like the proposed test of cutoff position against both
> >> ends of a segment is a roundabout way of fixing the problem. I
> >> wonder
Noah Misch writes:
> On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 06:04:52PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> 1. It seems like this discussion is conflating two different issues.
> When the newest XID and the oldest XID fall in "opposite" segments in the XID
> space, we must not unlink the segment containing the newest
On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 06:04:52PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Yeah, this patch has been waiting in the queue for way too long :-(.
Thanks for reviewing.
> I spent some time studying this, and I have a few comments/questions:
>
> 1. It seems like this discussion is conflating two different issues.
Noah Misch writes:
> On Sun, Jan 05, 2020 at 01:33:55AM +0100, Tomas Vondra wrote:
>> It's a bit unfortunate that a patch for a data corruption / loss issue
>> (even if a low-probability one) fell through multiple commitfests.
> Thanks for investing in steps to fix that.
Yeah, this patch has
On Sun, Jan 05, 2020 at 01:33:55AM +0100, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 11:26:23PM -0800, Noah Misch wrote:
> >a. Fix the rounding in SimpleLruTruncate(). (The patch I posted upthread is
> > wrong; I will correct it in a separate message.)
> >
> >b. Arrange so only one backend
On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 11:26:23PM -0800, Noah Misch wrote:
On Sat, Feb 02, 2019 at 03:38:22AM -0500, Noah Misch wrote:
The main consequence is the false alarm.
That conclusion was incorrect. On further study, I was able to reproduce data
loss via either of two weaknesses in the "apparent
On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 05:27:18PM +0900, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
> Sorry in advance for link-breaking message forced by gmail..
Using the archives page "Resend email" link avoids that.
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/20190202083822.gc32...@gust.leadboat.com
>
> > 1. The result of
Sorry in advance for link-breaking message forced by gmail..
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/20190202083822.gc32...@gust.leadboat.com
> 1. The result of the test is valid only until we release the SLRU ControlLock,
>which we do before SlruScanDirCbDeleteCutoff() uses the cutoff to
On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 11:26:23PM -0800, Noah Misch wrote:
> On further study, I was able to reproduce data loss
> Fixes are available:
>
> a. Fix the rounding in SimpleLruTruncate(). (The patch I posted upthread is
>wrong; I will correct it in a separate message.)
Here's a corrected
On Sat, Feb 02, 2019 at 03:38:22AM -0500, Noah Misch wrote:
> The main consequence is the false alarm.
That conclusion was incorrect. On further study, I was able to reproduce data
loss via either of two weaknesses in the "apparent wraparound" test:
1. The result of the test is valid only until
On Sat, Feb 02, 2019 at 03:38:22AM -0500, Noah Misch wrote:
> The main consequence is the false alarm. A prudent DBA will want to react to
> true wraparound, but no such wraparound has occurred. Also, we temporarily
> waste disk space in pg_xact. This feels like a recipe for future bugs. The
>
34 matches
Mail list logo
