On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 4:40 AM Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: > On 2022-02-22 01:11:21 -0800, Andres Freund wrote: > > I've started to work on a few debugging aids to find problem like > > these. Attached are two WIP patches: > > Forgot to attach. Also importantly includes a tap test for several of these > issues
Hi, Just a few very preliminary comments: - I am having some trouble understanding clearly what 0001 is doing. I'll try to study it further. - 0002 seems like it's generally a good idea. I haven't yet dug into why the call sites for AssertFileNotDeleted() are where they are, or whether that's a complete set of places to check. - In general, 0003 makes a lot of sense to me. + /* + * Finally tell the kernel to write the data to storage. Don't smgr if + * previously closed, otherwise we could end up evading fd-reuse + * protection. + */ - I think the above hunk is missing a word, because it uses smgr as a verb. I also think that it's easy to imagine this explanation being insufficient for some future hacker to understand the issue. - While 0004 seems useful for testing, it's an awfully big hammer. I'm not sure we should be thinking about committing something like that, or at least not as a default part of the build. But ... maybe? -- Robert Haas EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
