Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2020 20:51:29 -0700
From: Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com>
To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Cc: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>,
	Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota.ntt@gmail.com>, robertmhaas@gmail.com,
	9erthalion6@gmail.com, andrew.dunstan@2ndquadrant.com,
	hlinnaka@iki.fi, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] WAL logging problem in 9.4.3?
Message-ID: <20200402035129.GA3376861@rfd.leadboat.com>
References: <20200316034647.GA1121601@rfd.leadboat.com>
 <20200321190127.GA1763544@rfd.leadboat.com>
 <20200321224920.GB1763544@rfd.leadboat.com>
 <20200323.172027.2270553329883636814.horikyota.ntt@gmail.com>
 <20200330044101.GA2324620@rfd.leadboat.com>
 <20200330074300.GD43995@paquier.xyz>
 <20200331062854.GC3354091@rfd.leadboat.com>
 <20200331063757.rvix7i3ttdpkod5a@alap3.anarazel.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20200331063757.rvix7i3ttdpkod5a@alap3.anarazel.de>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 11:37:57PM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2020-03-30 23:28:54 -0700, Noah Misch wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 04:43:00PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> > > On Sun, Mar 29, 2020 at 09:41:01PM -0700, Noah Misch wrote:
> > > > I think attached v41nm is ready for commit.  Would anyone like to vote against
> > > > back-patching this?  It's hard to justify lack of back-patch for a data-loss
> > > > bug, but this is atypically invasive.  (I'm repeating the question, since some
> > > > folks missed my 2020-02-18 question.)  Otherwise, I'll push this on Saturday.
> > > 
> > > The invasiveness of the patch is a concern.  Have you considered a
> > > different strategy?  For example, we are soon going to be in beta for
> > > 13, so you could consider committing the patch only on HEAD first.
> > > If there are issues to take care of, you can then leverage the beta
> > > testing to address any issues found.  Finally, once some dust has
> > > settled on the concept and we have gained enough confidence, we could
> > > consider a back-patch.
> > 
> > No.  Does anyone favor this proposal more than back-patching normally?
> 
> I have not reviewed the patch, so I don't have a good feeling for its
> riskiness. But it does sound fairly invasive. Given that we've lived
> with this issue for many years by now, and that the rate of incidents
> seems to have been fairly low, I think living with the issue for a bit
> longer to gain confidence might be a good choice.  But I'd not push back
> if you, being much more informed, think the risk/reward balance favors
> immediate backpatching.

I've translated the non-vote comments into estimated votes of -0.3, -0.6,
-0.4, +0.5, and -0.3.  Hence, I revoke the plan to back-patch.