Re: BUG #14999: pg_rewind corrupts control file global/pg_control
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: BUG #14999: pg_rewind corrupts control file global/pg_control |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 22961.1522867812@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: BUG #14999: pg_rewind corrupts control file global/pg_control (Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>) |
Ответы |
Re: BUG #14999: pg_rewind corrupts control file global/pg_control
|
Список | pgsql-bugs |
Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> writes: > So after that I falled back to your patch and began testing it, which is > where I noticed that we can *never* give the insurance to recover a data > folder on which an error has happened in the middle of a pg_rewind. The > reason for that is quite simple: even if the truncation has been moved > down to the moment where the first chunk of a file is received, you may > have already done work on some relation files. Particularly, some of > them may have been truncated down to a given size without a new range of > blocks fetched from the source. So the data folder would be in an > inconsistent state if trying to rewind it again. Yes, we certainly cannot guarantee that failure partway through pg_rewind leaves a consistent state of the target data directory. It is likely worth pointing that out in the documentation. Whether we can or should do anything about it is a different question. When I first started looking at this thread, I wondered if maybe somebody had had in mind to create an active defense against starting a postmaster in an inconsistent target cluster, by dint of intentionally truncating pg_control before the transfer starts and not making it valid again till the very end. It's now clear from looking at the code that that's not what's going on :-(. But I wonder how hard it would be to make it so, and whether that'd be worth doing if it's not too hard. Actually, probably a safer way to attack that would be to remove or rename the topmost PG_VERSION file, and then put it back afterwards. That'd be far easier to recover from manually, if need be, than clobbering pg_control. In any case, that seems separate from the question of what to do with read-only files in the data directory. Should we push forward with committing Michael's previous patch, and leave that issue for later? regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-bugs по дате отправления: