Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2017 20:42:17 -0300
From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
To: Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi.kyotaro@lab.ntt.co.jp>
Cc: michael.paquier@gmail.com, david@pgmasters.net, hlinnaka@iki.fi,
	simon@2ndquadrant.com, tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, andres@anarazel.de,
	masao.fujii@gmail.com, kleptog@svana.org,
	pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: WAL logging problem in 9.4.3?
Message-ID: <20170407234217.i345adtkknjfw6ss@alvherre.pgsql>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <20170407233321.lpruyvn6r4tuujmt@alvherre.pgsql>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170206-195-7adf12 (1.7.2)
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org

Alvaro Herrera wrote:

> I suppose the rationale is that this shouldn't happen because any
> operation that does things this way must hold an exclusive lock on the
> relation.  But that doesn't guarantee that the relcache entry is
> completely stable, does it?  If we can get proof of that, then this
> technique should be safe, I think.

It occurs to me that in order to test this we could run the recovery
tests (including Michael's new 006 file, which you didn't include in
your patch) under -D CLOBBER_CACHE_ALWAYS.  I think that'd be sufficient
proof that it is solid.

-- 
Álvaro Herrera                https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers