Feedback-ID: ia2694551:Fastmail
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2024 20:18:30 +0100
From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
To: Alexander Kukushkin <cyberdemn@gmail.com>
Cc: Sutou Kouhei <kou@clear-code.com>, smithpb2250@gmail.com,
	torikoshia@oss.nttdata.com, horikyota.ntt@gmail.com, michael@paquier.xyz,
	pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org, bungina@gmail.com,
 pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: pg_rewind WAL segments deletion pitfall
Message-ID: <202411121918.beiyanf6gfnb@alvherre.pgsql>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="csdiumi66hplrfon"
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAFh8B==NeH=4c-3Fz3uvra-WyTQYY7QkH95m-vZNPOw2YK_KjQ@mail.gmail.com>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/202411121918.beiyanf6gfnb%40alvherre.pgsql>
Precedence: bulk


--csdiumi66hplrfon
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Hello

After reading the whole thread a couple of times to make sure I
understood the problem correctly, I think the approach in the v10 patch
is a reasonable one.  I agree that it's better for maintainability to
keep a separate hash table.  I made some cosmetic adjustments -- didn't
find any fault in the code.  I also verified that the test is hitting
the problematic case.

So here's v11, which I'll try to get out tomorrow.

I also assessed back-patching this.  There's some conflicts, but nothing
serious, back to 14.  Unfortunately, 13 lacks requisite infrastructure,
so I think it'll have to stay as it is.  (12 is dead.)

Can you please verify that my explanation in the commit message is
sound?

Thanks

-- 
Álvaro Herrera               48°01'N 7°57'E  —  https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
"Cada quien es cada cual y baja las escaleras como quiere" (JMSerrat)

--csdiumi66hplrfon
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v11-0001-Be-more-picky-with-WAL-segment-deletion-in-pg_re.patch"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit