Hot Standby 0.2.1
in [PgSql]
|
From: Simon Riggs on 7 Oct 2009 09:52 On Tue, 2009-09-22 at 12:53 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > It looks like the standby tries to remove XID 4323 from the > known-assigned hash table, but it's not there because it was removed > and set in pg_subtrans by an XLOG_XACT_ASSIGNMENT record earlier. I > guess we should just not throw an error in that case, but is there a > way we could catch that narrow case and still keep the check in > KnownAssignedXidsRemove()? It seems like the check might help catch > other bugs, so I'd rather keep it if possible. Fix attached. -- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
From: Simon Riggs on 7 Oct 2009 10:29 On Wed, 2009-09-23 at 12:07 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > we need be careful to avoid putting any extra work into the normal > recovery path. Otherwise bugs in hot standby related code can cause > crash recovery to fail. Re-checked code and found a couple of additional places that needed tests if (InHotStandby) -- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
From: Heikki Linnakangas on 7 Oct 2009 23:11 Simon Riggs wrote: > On Tue, 2009-09-22 at 12:53 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: >> It looks like the standby tries to remove XID 4323 from the >> known-assigned hash table, but it's not there because it was removed >> and set in pg_subtrans by an XLOG_XACT_ASSIGNMENT record earlier. I >> guess we should just not throw an error in that case, but is there a >> way we could catch that narrow case and still keep the check in >> KnownAssignedXidsRemove()? It seems like the check might help catch >> other bugs, so I'd rather keep it if possible. > > Fix attached. I fixed that on Friday already, in a slightly different manner. Do you see a problem with that approach? I've made public the version I'm working on. That's the version I'm ultimately going to commit. It would be a lot more helpful if you provided these patches over that version. Otherwise I have to refactor them over that codebase, possibly introducing new bugs. -- Heikki Linnakangas EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(a)postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
From: Heikki Linnakangas on 7 Oct 2009 23:19 Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > I've made public the version I'm working on. That's the version I'm > ultimately going to commit. It would be a lot more helpful if you > provided these patches over that version. Otherwise I have to refactor > them over that codebase, possibly introducing new bugs. Actually, it makes most sense if you push your changes directly to my git repository. I just granted you write access to it. Please do these changes against the version currently there, and push any fixes there directly. -- Heikki Linnakangas EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(a)postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
From: Simon Riggs on 8 Oct 2009 03:04
On Wed, 2009-10-07 at 23:19 -0400, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > > I've made public the version I'm working on. That's the version I'm > > ultimately going to commit. It would be a lot more helpful if you > > provided these patches over that version. Otherwise I have to refactor > > them over that codebase, possibly introducing new bugs. > > Actually, it makes most sense if you push your changes directly to my > git repository. I just granted you write access to it. Please do these > changes against the version currently there, and push any fixes there > directly. OK, that makes sense. Thank you. I would still like you to make a clear statement that the contents of that repository are BSD licenced open source contributions. I have a contractual responsibility to ensure the code I write is licenced in that way. I have already mentioned I'm not looking at it yet for that reason, so I am unaware of any changes not posted to the list. You have posted patches that I have said I don't agree with. My name is going to be on this when it goes in, so I don't think it makes any sense to force that commit to include changes I don't agree with. I cannot prevent you making changes afterwards, nor would I wish to. I'd like you to respond sensibly to comments on those. We should work together on a consensus basis, especially since I know you have not fully tested your changes (either). Your error rate might be lower than mine, but it is non-zero. -- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(a)postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers |