Standalone backends run StartupXLOG in an incorrect environment
in [PgSql]
|
From: Tom Lane on 22 Mar 2010 21:30 Bruce Momjian <bruce(a)momjian.us> writes: >> [This is an open item for 9.0, hence the response to an apparently old >> hackers thread] > Thanks for the reply; 9.0 open item removed. I think you misread his reply. Please put that back. regards, tom lane -- 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: Robert Haas on 19 Apr 2010 11:00 On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 9:32 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce(a)momjian.us> wrote: > Tom Lane wrote: >> Bruce Momjian <bruce(a)momjian.us> writes: >> >> [This is an open item for 9.0, hence the response to an apparently old >> >> hackers thread] >> >> > Thanks for the reply; 9.0 open item removed. >> >> I think you misread his reply. Please put that back. > > OK, I re-read it and still don't understand, but I don't have to. I re-read it too and I don't understand either. This is LISTED as an open item for 9.0, but it is apparently not a new regression, so I think we should move it to the Todo list instead. This problem was discovered six months ago, is not a new regression, and there is apparently no movement toward a fix, so it doesn't make sense to me that we should hold up either 9.0 beta or 9.0 final on account of it. Or am I confused? .....Robert -- 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: Tom Lane on 19 Apr 2010 11:19 Robert Haas <robertmhaas(a)gmail.com> writes: > On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 9:32 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce(a)momjian.us> wrote: >> OK, �I re-read it and still don't understand, but I don't have to. > I re-read it too and I don't understand either. The point is that a standalone backend will fail to execute recovery correctly: http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2009-09/msg01297.php This is bad enough now but seems likely to be an even bigger foot-gun in an HS/SR world. > This is LISTED as an > open item for 9.0, but it is apparently not a new regression, so I > think we should move it to the Todo list instead. This problem was > discovered six months ago, is not a new regression, and there is > apparently no movement toward a fix, so it doesn't make sense to me > that we should hold up either 9.0 beta or 9.0 final on account of it. If you think we're at the point where this item is the main thing standing between us and beta, I'll go do something about it. I've been waiting for the HS code to settle before trying to design a solution... regards, tom lane -- 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: Robert Haas on 19 Apr 2010 12:09 On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 11:19 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(a)sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmhaas(a)gmail.com> writes: >> On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 9:32 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce(a)momjian.us> wrote: >>> OK, I re-read it and still don't understand, but I don't have to. > >> I re-read it too and I don't understand either. > > The point is that a standalone backend will fail to execute recovery > correctly: > http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2009-09/msg01297.php > This is bad enough now but seems likely to be an even bigger foot-gun > in an HS/SR world. OK. >> This is LISTED as an >> open item for 9.0, but it is apparently not a new regression, so I >> think we should move it to the Todo list instead. This problem was >> discovered six months ago, is not a new regression, and there is >> apparently no movement toward a fix, so it doesn't make sense to me >> that we should hold up either 9.0 beta or 9.0 final on account of it. > > If you think we're at the point where this item is the main thing > standing between us and beta, I'll go do something about it. I've > been waiting for the HS code to settle before trying to design a > solution... I'm not sure if this is the main thing, but I think it's probably in the top 5. At present there are 8 items (not counting documentation issues) listed at: http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/PostgreSQL_9.0_Open_Items ....not all of which seem likely to get fixed, and probably 1-3 additional patches that are floating around out there without having formally gotten added to the list. I think it's realistic to think that we could be within 10 commits of beta. ....Robert -- 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: Tom Lane on 19 Apr 2010 13:01 Simon Riggs <simon(a)2ndQuadrant.com> writes: > On Mon, 2010-04-19 at 11:19 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> If you think we're at the point where this item is the main thing >> standing between us and beta, I'll go do something about it. I've >> been waiting for the HS code to settle before trying to design a >> solution... > I'm not hugely interested in supporting HS in standalone backends. I'm not either. The type of scenario that I'm worried about is someone trying to use a standalone backend to clean up after a recovery failure. Right now I'm afraid that could make things worse (ie create additional corruption). regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(a)postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
|
Next
|
Last
Pages: 1 2 Prev: Standalone backends run StartupXLOG in anincorrect environment Next: Windowing Qual Pushdown |