Re: [HACKERS] Bug in StartupSUBTRANS

2016-02-19 Thread Simon Riggs
On 14 February 2016 at 00:03, Jeff Janes wrote: > I've attached a new version, incorporating comments from Tom and Michael. > Applied, thanks. -- Simon Riggshttp://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support,

Re: [HACKERS] Bug in StartupSUBTRANS

2016-02-16 Thread Michael Paquier
On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 9:03 AM, Jeff Janes wrote: > I've repeated the crash/recovery/wrap-around testing with the proposed > fix in place, and this pre-existing problem seems to be fixed now, and > I have found no other problems. > > I've attached a new version,

Re: [HACKERS] Bug in StartupSUBTRANS

2016-02-13 Thread Jeff Janes
On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 10:33 AM, Simon Riggs wrote: > On 9 February 2016 at 18:42, Jeff Janes wrote: >> >> While testing the crash resilience of the recent 2-part-commit >> improvements, I've run into a problem where sometimes after a crash >> the

Re: [HACKERS] Bug in StartupSUBTRANS

2016-02-09 Thread Tom Lane
Simon Riggs writes: > Your patch looks right to me, so I will commit, barring objections... with > backpatch. Likely to 9.0, AFAICS. 9.0 is out of support and should not be patched anymore. I agree that the patch is basically correct, though I'd personally write it

Re: [HACKERS] Bug in StartupSUBTRANS

2016-02-09 Thread Simon Riggs
On 9 February 2016 at 18:42, Jeff Janes wrote: > While testing the crash resilience of the recent 2-part-commit > improvements, I've run into a problem where sometimes after a crash > the recovery process creates zeroed files in pg_subtrans until it > exhausts all disk

Re: [HACKERS] Bug in StartupSUBTRANS

2016-02-09 Thread Michael Paquier
On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 3:45 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > Simon Riggs writes: >> Your patch looks right to me, so I will commit, barring objections... with >> backpatch. Likely to 9.0, AFAICS. > > 9.0 is out of support and should not be patched anymore. > > I