Re: BUG #17928: Standby fails to decode WAL on termination of primary
От | Thomas Munro |
---|---|
Тема | Re: BUG #17928: Standby fails to decode WAL on termination of primary |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CA+hUKG+jFN64gKVGcmfNTekqWn3cemRx99-B8DDBaDyzWnfpkw@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: BUG #17928: Standby fails to decode WAL on termination of primary (Sergei Kornilov <sk@zsrv.org>) |
Ответы |
Re: BUG #17928: Standby fails to decode WAL on termination of primary
|
Список | pgsql-bugs |
Thanks for looking/testing, Sergei. Thanks for the changes, Michael, these all look good. I've squashed them and added you as co-author. A couple more small comment/text changes: 1. In the place where we fail to allocate memory for an oversized record, I copied the comment about treating that as a "bogus data" condition. I suspect that we will soon be converting that to a FATAL error[1], and that'll need to be done in both places. 2. In this version of the commit message I said we'd only back-patch to 15 for now. After sleeping on this for a week, I realised that the reason I keep vacillating on that point is that I am not sure what your plan is for the malloc-failure-means-end-of-wal policy ([1], ancient code from 0ffe11abd3a). If we're going to fix that in master only but let sleeping dogs lie in the back-branches, then it becomes less important to go back further than 15 with THIS patch. But if you want to be able to distinguish garbage from out-of-memory, and thereby end-of-wal from a FATAL please-insert-more-RAM condition, I think you'd really need this industrial strength validation in all affected branches, and I'd have more work to do, right? The weak validation we are fixing here is the *real* underlying problem going back many years, right? I also wondered about strengthening the validation of various things like redo begin/end LSNs etc in these tests. But we can always continue to improve all this later... Here also is a version for 15 (and a CI run[2]), since we tweaked many of the error messages between 15 and 16. [1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/ZMh/WV%2BCuknqePQQ%40paquier.xyz [2] https://cirrus-ci.com/task/4533280897236992 (failed on some unrelated pgbench test, reported in another thread)
Вложения
В списке pgsql-bugs по дате отправления: