public inbox for [email protected]  

help / color / mirror / Atom feed

From: Noah Misch <[email protected]>
To: Tom Lane <[email protected]>
Cc: Michael Paquier <[email protected]>
Cc: Nathan Bossart <[email protected]>
Cc: Andres Freund <[email protected]>
Cc: Robert Pang <[email protected]>
Cc: Kyotaro Horiguchi <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Back-patch of: avoid multiple hard links to same WAL file after a crash
Date: Sat, 5 Apr 2025 12:13:39 -0700
Message-ID: <[email protected]> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<Z8n7HopB0bb4_j19@nathan>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>

On Sat, Apr 05, 2025 at 11:07:13AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Michael Paquier <[email protected]> writes:
> > On Wed, Apr 02, 2025 at 05:29:00PM -0700, Noah Misch wrote:
> >> Here it is.  Making it fail three times took looping 1383s, 5841s, and 2594s.
> >> Hence, it couldn't be expected to catch the regression before commit, but it
> >> would have made sufficient buildfarm and CI noise in the day after commit.
> 
> > Hmm.  Not much of a fan of the addition of a test that has less than
> > 1% of reproducibility for the problem, even if it's good to see that
> > this can be made portable to run down to v13.
> 
> Yeah, it's good to have a test but I doubt we should commit it.
> Too many buildfarm cycles will be expended for too little result.

Current extent of our archive recovery restartpoint test coverage:

$ grep -c 'restartpoint starting' $(grep -rl 'restored log file' **/log) | grep -v :0
src/bin/pg_combinebackup/tmp_check/log/002_compare_backups_pitr1.log:1
src/test/recovery/tmp_check/log/020_archive_status_standby2.log:1
src/test/recovery/tmp_check/log/002_archiving_standby.log:1
src/test/recovery/tmp_check/log/020_archive_status_standby.log:1
src/test/recovery/tmp_check/log/035_standby_logical_decoding_standby.log:2

Since the 2025-02 releases made non-toy-size archive recoveries fail easily,
that's not enough.  If the proposed 3-second test is the wrong thing, what
instead?

view thread (15+ messages)  latest in thread

reply

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
  reply via email

  To: [email protected]
  Cc: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
  Subject: Re: Back-patch of: avoid multiple hard links to same WAL file after a crash
  In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

This inbox is served by agora; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox