Subject: Re: standby recovery fails (tablespace related) (tentative patch and discussion)

From: Alvaro Herrera <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2022 13:26:05 +0100

On 2022-Mar-21, Alvaro Herrera wrote:

> I had a look at this latest version of the patch, and found some things
> to tweak.  Attached is v21 with three main changes from Kyotaro's v20:

Pushed this, backpatching to 14 and 13.  It would have been good to
backpatch further, but there's an (textually trivial) merge conflict
related to commit e6d8069522c8.  Because that commit conceptually
touches the same area that this bugfix is about, I'm not sure that
backpatching further without a lot more thought is wise -- particularly
so when there's no way to automate the test in branches older than
master.

This is quite annoying, considering that the bug was reported shortly
before 12 went into beta.

-- 
Álvaro Herrera        Breisgau, Deutschland  —  https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
"If you have nothing to say, maybe you need just the right tool to help you
not say it."                   (New York Times, about Microsoft PowerPoint)

---

From: Kyotaro Horiguchi <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2022 10:01:05 +0900 (JST)

At Fri, 25 Mar 2022 13:26:05 +0100, Alvaro Herrera <[email-masked]> wrote in 
> so when there's no way to automate the test in branches older than

Thaks for committing.

> before 12 went into beta.

Sure.  I'm going to look into that.

regards.

-- 
Kyotaro Horiguchi
NTT Open Source Software Center

---

From: Thomas Munro <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2022 14:34:44 +1300

> > so when there's no way to automate the test in branches older than

Just a thought:  we could consider back-patching
allow_in_place_tablespaces, after a little while, if we're happy with
how that is working out, if it'd be useful for verifying bug fixes in
back branches.  It's non-end-user-facing testing infrastructure.

---

From: Kyotaro Horiguchi <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2022 15:25:51 +0900 (JST)

At Mon, 28 Mar 2022 14:34:44 +1300, Thomas Munro <[email-masked]> wrote in 
> back branches.  It's non-end-user-facing testing infrastructure.

I appreciate if we accept that.  The patch is simple.  And it now has
the clear use-case for back-patching.

regards.

---

From: Kyotaro Horiguchi <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2022 17:20:42 +0900 (JST)

At Mon, 28 Mar 2022 10:01:05 +0900 (JST), Kyotaro Horiguchi <[email-masked]> wrote in 
> Sure.  I'm going to look into that.

This is a preparatory patch and tentative (yes, it's just tentative)
test. This is made for 12 but applies with some warnings to 10-11.

(Hope the attachments are attached as "attachment", not  "inline".)

regards.

---

From: Robert Haas <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2022 10:37:04 -0400

> before 12 went into beta.

I think that the warnings this patch issues may cause some unnecessary
end-user alarm. It seems to me that they are basically warning about a
situation that is unusual but not scary. Isn't the appropriate level
for that DEBUG1, maybe without the errhint?

-- 
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com

---

From: Kyotaro Horiguchi <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2022 10:34:42 +0900 (JST)

At Mon, 28 Mar 2022 10:37:04 -0400, Robert Haas <[email-masked]> wrote in 
> for that DEBUG1, maybe without the errhint?

log_invalid_page reports missing pages with DEBUG1 before reaching
consistency.  And since missing directory is not an issue if all of
those reports are forgotten until reaching consistency, DEBUG1 sounds
reasonable.  Maybe we lower the DEBUG1 messages to DEBUG2 in
XLogRememberMissingDir?

---

From: Michael Paquier <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2022 10:57:42 +0900

> back branches.  It's non-end-user-facing testing infrastructure.

+1 for a backpatch on that.  That would be useful.
--
Michael