Hi, While testing the v8 patches in a hot-standby setup, it was observed the master is crashing with the below error;
2021-12-16 19:32:47.757 +04 [101483] PANIC: could not fsync file "pg_tblspc/16385/PG_15_202112111/16386/16391": No such file or directory 2021-12-16 19:32:48.917 +04 [101482] LOG: checkpointer process (PID 101483) was terminated by signal 6: Aborted Parameters configured at master: wal_level = hot_standby max_wal_senders = 3 hot_standby = on max_standby_streaming_delay= -1 wal_consistency_checking='all' max_wal_size= 10GB checkpoint_timeout= 1d log_min_messages=debug1 Test Case: create tablespace tab1 location '/home/edb/PGsources/postgresql/inst/bin/test1'; create tablespace tab location '/home/edb/PGsources/postgresql/inst/bin/test'; create database test tablespace tab; \c test create table t( a int PRIMARY KEY,b text); CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION large_val() RETURNS TEXT LANGUAGE SQL AS 'select array_agg(md5(g::text))::text from generate_series(1, 256) g'; insert into t values (generate_series(1,100000), large_val()); alter table t set tablespace tab1 ; \c postgres create database test1 template test; \c test1 alter table t set tablespace tab; \c postgres alter database test1 set tablespace tab1; --cancel the below command alter database test1 set tablespace pg_default; --press ctrl+c \c test1 alter table t set tablespace tab1; Log file attached for reference. Thanks. -- Regards, Neha Sharma On Thu, Dec 16, 2021 at 4:17 PM Dilip Kumar <dilipbal...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Dec 16, 2021 at 12:15 AM Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Dec 2, 2021 at 07:19:50PM +0530, Dilip Kumar wrote: > > From the patch: > > > > > Currently, CREATE DATABASE forces a checkpoint, then copies all the > files, > > > then forces another checkpoint. The comments in the createdb() function > > > explain the reasons for this. The attached patch fixes this problem by > making > > > create database completely WAL logged so that we can avoid the > checkpoints. > > > > > > This can also be useful for supporting the TDE. For example, if we > need different > > > encryption for the source and the target database then we can not > re-encrypt the > > > page data if we copy the whole directory. But with this patch, we are > copying > > > page by page so we have an opportunity to re-encrypt the page before > copying that > > > to the target database. > > > > Uh, why is this true? Why can't we just copy the heap/index files 8k at > > a time and reencrypt them during the file copy, rather than using shared > > buffers? > > Hi Bruce, > > Yeah, you are right that if we copy in 8k block then we can re-encrypt > the page, but in the current system, we are not copying block by > block. So the main effort for this patch is not only for TDE but to > get rid of the checkpoint we are forced to do before and after create > database. So my point is that in this patch since we are copying page > by page we get an opportunity to re-encrypt the page. I agree that if > the re-encryption would have been the main goal of this patch then > true we can copy files in 8k blocks and re-encrypt those blocks, that > time even if we have to access some page data for re-encryption (like > nonce) then also we can do it, but that is not the main objective. > > -- > Regards, > Dilip Kumar > EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com > > >
master_logfile
Description: Binary data
