On Fri, Apr 25, 2025 at 03:35:06PM -0400, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2025-04-20 14:53:39 -0700, Noah Misch wrote:
> > The checkpoints and WAL creation took 30s, but archiving was only 20% done
> > (based on file name 0001006D) at the 360s PGCTLTIMEOUT.
>
> Huh. That seems surprisin
Hi,
On 2025-04-20 14:53:39 -0700, Noah Misch wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 14, 2025 at 09:19:35AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> > On Sun, Apr 13, 2025 at 11:51:57AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > > Noah Misch writes:
> > > > Tom and Michael, do you still object to the test addition, or not? If
> > > > the
On Sun, Apr 20, 2025 at 02:53:39PM -0700, Noah Misch wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 14, 2025 at 09:19:35AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> > On Sun, Apr 13, 2025 at 11:51:57AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > > Noah Misch writes:
> > > > Tom and Michael, do you still object to the test addition, or not? If
> >
On Mon, Apr 14, 2025 at 09:19:35AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 13, 2025 at 11:51:57AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Noah Misch writes:
> > > Tom and Michael, do you still object to the test addition, or not? If
> > > there
> > > are no new or renewed objections by 2025-04-20, I'll p
On Sun, Apr 13, 2025 at 11:51:57AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Noah Misch writes:
> > Tom and Michael, do you still object to the test addition, or not? If there
> > are no new or renewed objections by 2025-04-20, I'll proceed to add the
> > test.
>
> While I still don't love it, I don't have a be
Noah Misch writes:
> Tom and Michael, do you still object to the test addition, or not? If there
> are no new or renewed objections by 2025-04-20, I'll proceed to add the test.
While I still don't love it, I don't have a better proposal.
regards, tom lane
On Sat, Apr 05, 2025 at 07:09:58PM -0700, Noah Misch wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 06, 2025 at 07:42:02AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> > On Sat, Apr 05, 2025 at 12:13:39PM -0700, Noah Misch wrote:
> > > Since the 2025-02 releases made non-toy-size archive recoveries fail
> > > easily,
> > > that's not e
On Sat, Apr 05, 2025 at 07:14:27PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 02, 2025 at 05:29:00PM -0700, Noah Misch wrote:
>> Your back-patches are correct. Thanks.
>
> Thanks for double-checking. I'll move on with what I have after a
> second look as it's been a few weeks since I've looked
On Sun, Apr 06, 2025 at 07:42:02AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 05, 2025 at 12:13:39PM -0700, Noah Misch wrote:
> > Since the 2025-02 releases made non-toy-size archive recoveries fail easily,
> > that's not enough. If the proposed 3-second test is the wrong thing, what
> > instead?
On Sat, Apr 05, 2025 at 12:13:39PM -0700, Noah Misch wrote:
> Since the 2025-02 releases made non-toy-size archive recoveries fail easily,
> that's not enough. If the proposed 3-second test is the wrong thing, what
> instead?
I don't have a good idea about that in ~16, TBH, but I am sure to not
b
On Sat, Apr 05, 2025 at 11:07:13AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Michael Paquier writes:
> > On Wed, Apr 02, 2025 at 05:29:00PM -0700, Noah Misch wrote:
> >> Here it is. Making it fail three times took looping 1383s, 5841s, and
> >> 2594s.
> >> Hence, it couldn't be expected to catch the regression b
On Tue, Mar 11, 2025 at 06:23:15PM -0700, Noah Misch wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 12, 2025 at 09:46:27AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 11, 2025 at 01:57:49PM -0700, Noah Misch wrote:
> > > Thanks for crafting back-branch versions. I've queued a task to confirm
> > > I get
> > > the same r
Michael Paquier writes:
> On Wed, Apr 02, 2025 at 05:29:00PM -0700, Noah Misch wrote:
>> Here it is. Making it fail three times took looping 1383s, 5841s, and 2594s.
>> Hence, it couldn't be expected to catch the regression before commit, but it
>> would have made sufficient buildfarm and CI nois
On Wed, Apr 02, 2025 at 05:29:00PM -0700, Noah Misch wrote:
> Your back-patches are correct. Thanks.
Thanks for double-checking. I'll move on with what I have after a
second look as it's been a few weeks since I've looked at all these
conflicts. I am also planning to add a few notes in the comm
On Wed, Mar 12, 2025 at 09:46:27AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 11, 2025 at 01:57:49PM -0700, Noah Misch wrote:
> > Thanks for crafting back-branch versions. I've queued a task to confirm I
> > get
> > the same result.
>
> Thanks for that. That helps a lot.
I'll let you know whe
On Tue, Mar 11, 2025 at 01:57:49PM -0700, Noah Misch wrote:
> Thanks for crafting back-branch versions. I've queued a task to confirm I get
> the same result.
Thanks for that. That helps a lot.
> There's a test case I'll polish, too.
Are you considering the addition of a TAP test in 17~ based
On Mon, Mar 10, 2025 at 02:25:28PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 06, 2025 at 01:44:30PM -0600, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 06, 2025 at 11:30:13AM -0800, Noah Misch wrote:
> >> 1. Make v14 and v13 skip WAL recycling and preallocation during archive
> >>recovery, like newe
On Thu, Dec 19, 2024 at 02:44:53PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 18, 2024 at 08:51:20PM -0500, Andres Freund wrote:
> > I don't think the issue is actually quite as unlikely to be hit as reasoned
> > in
> > the commit message. The crash has indeed to happen between the link() and
>
On Mon, Mar 10, 2025 at 02:25:28PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> I am attaching a full set of patches for v14 and v13 that can be used
> for these tests. WDYT?
And I forgot to mention that I've checked both v14 and v13, where I
have noticed the two patterns "invalid magic number in log
seg
On Thu, Mar 06, 2025 at 01:44:30PM -0600, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 06, 2025 at 11:30:13AM -0800, Noah Misch wrote:
>> 1. Make v14 and v13 skip WAL recycling and preallocation during archive
>>recovery, like newer branches do. I think that means back-patching the
>> six
>>commit
On Thu, Mar 06, 2025 at 11:30:13AM -0800, Noah Misch wrote:
> Options I see:
>
> 1. Make v14 and v13 skip WAL recycling and preallocation during archive
>recovery, like newer branches do. I think that means back-patching the six
>commits cc2c7d6~4 cc2c7d6~3 cc2c7d6~2 cc2c7d6~1 cc2c7d6 e36
Dear Michael,
Thank you for applying this back-patch. I also appreciate everyone's input
on this issue.
Sincerely,
Robert Pang
On Thu, Dec 19, 2024 at 4:13 PM Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 19, 2024 at 11:07:25AM -0500, Andres Freund wrote:
> > On 2024-12-19 09:31:14 -0600, Nathan Boss
On Thu, Dec 19, 2024 at 11:07:25AM -0500, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2024-12-19 09:31:14 -0600, Nathan Bossart wrote:
>> LGTM
>
> Dito.
Thanks for double-checking. Done this one.
--
Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On 2024-12-19 09:31:14 -0600, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 19, 2024 at 02:44:53PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> > I've been double-checking the code to refresh myself with the problem,
> > and I don't see a reason to not apply something like the attached set
> > down to v13 for all these r
On Thu, Dec 19, 2024 at 02:44:53PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> I've been double-checking the code to refresh myself with the problem,
> and I don't see a reason to not apply something like the attached set
> down to v13 for all these remaining branches (minus an edit of the
> commit message).
On Wed, Dec 18, 2024 at 08:51:20PM -0500, Andres Freund wrote:
> I don't think the issue is actually quite as unlikely to be hit as reasoned in
> the commit message. The crash has indeed to happen between the link() and
> unlink() - but at the end of a checkpoint we do that operations hundreds of
Hi,
On 2024-12-18 10:38:19 -0600, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 17, 2024 at 04:50:16PM -0800, Robert Pang wrote:
> > We recently observed a few cases where Postgres running on Linux
> > encountered an issue with WAL segment files. Specifically, two WAL
> > segments were linked to the same ph
On Tue, Dec 17, 2024 at 04:50:16PM -0800, Robert Pang wrote:
> We recently observed a few cases where Postgres running on Linux
> encountered an issue with WAL segment files. Specifically, two WAL
> segments were linked to the same physical file after Postgres ran out
> of memory and the OOM killer
Dear team,
We recently observed a few cases where Postgres running on Linux
encountered an issue with WAL segment files. Specifically, two WAL
segments were linked to the same physical file after Postgres ran out
of memory and the OOM killer terminated one of its processes. This
resulted in the WA
29 matches
Mail list logo
