On Wed, 31 Jul 2024 at 05:25, Noah Misch wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jul 15, 2024 at 03:44:48PM +1200, Thomas Munro wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 12, 2024 at 11:43 PM Noah Misch wrote:
> > > On Sat, May 18, 2024 at 05:29:12PM +1200, Thomas Munro wrote:
> > > > On Fri, May 17, 2024 at 4:46 PM Thomas Munro
> > >
On Mon, Jul 15, 2024 at 03:44:48PM +1200, Thomas Munro wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 12, 2024 at 11:43 PM Noah Misch wrote:
> > On Sat, May 18, 2024 at 05:29:12PM +1200, Thomas Munro wrote:
> > > On Fri, May 17, 2024 at 4:46 PM Thomas Munro
> > > wrote:
> > > > The specific problem here is that LocalProc
Hello Thomas,
15.07.2024 06:44, Thomas Munro wrote:
I'm going to upgrade this to a proposal:
https://commitfest.postgresql.org/49/5124/
I wonder how often this happens in the wild.
Please look at a recent failure [1], produced by buildfarm animal
culicidae, which tests EXEC_BACKEND. I guess
On Fri, Jul 12, 2024 at 11:43 PM Noah Misch wrote:
> On Sat, May 18, 2024 at 05:29:12PM +1200, Thomas Munro wrote:
> > On Fri, May 17, 2024 at 4:46 PM Thomas Munro wrote:
> > > The specific problem here is that LocalProcessControlFile() runs in
> > > every launched child for EXEC_BACKEND builds.
On Sat, May 18, 2024 at 05:29:12PM +1200, Thomas Munro wrote:
> On Fri, May 17, 2024 at 4:46 PM Thomas Munro wrote:
> > The specific problem here is that LocalProcessControlFile() runs in
> > every launched child for EXEC_BACKEND builds. Windows uses
> > EXEC_BACKEND, and Windows' NTFS file syste
On Fri, May 17, 2024 at 4:46 PM Thomas Munro wrote:
> The specific problem here is that LocalProcessControlFile() runs in
> every launched child for EXEC_BACKEND builds. Windows uses
> EXEC_BACKEND, and Windows' NTFS file system is one of the two file
> systems known to this list to have the conc
The specific problem here is that LocalProcessControlFile() runs in
every launched child for EXEC_BACKEND builds. Windows uses
EXEC_BACKEND, and Windows' NTFS file system is one of the two file
systems known to this list to have the concurrent read/write data
mashing problem (the other being ext4)
Hi,
On 2024-05-16 15:01:31 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund writes:
> > On 2024-05-16 14:50:50 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> The intention was certainly always that it be atomic. If it isn't
> >> we have got *big* trouble.
>
> > We unfortunately do *know* that on several systems e.g. baseba
Andres Freund writes:
> On 2024-05-16 14:50:50 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> The intention was certainly always that it be atomic. If it isn't
>> we have got *big* trouble.
> We unfortunately do *know* that on several systems e.g. basebackup can read a
> partially written control file, while the con
Hi,
On 2024-05-16 14:50:50 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Nathan Bossart writes:
> > I suspect it will be difficult to investigate this one too much further
> > unless we can track down a copy of the control file with the bad checksum.
> > Other than searching for any new code that isn't doing the appr
Nathan Bossart writes:
> I suspect it will be difficult to investigate this one too much further
> unless we can track down a copy of the control file with the bad checksum.
> Other than searching for any new code that isn't doing the appropriate
> locking, maybe we could search the buildfarm for
On Thu, May 16, 2024 at 12:19:22PM -0400, Melanie Plageman wrote:
> Today, after committing a3e6c6f, I saw recovery/018_wal_optimize.pl
> fail and see this message in the replica log [2].
>
> 2024-05-16 15:12:22.821 GMT [5440][not initialized] FATAL: incorrect
> checksum in control file
>
> I'm
On Sun, Jun 7, 2020 at 10:49 PM Thomas Munro wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 2:03 PM Michael Paquier wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 03, 2020 at 10:56:13AM +1200, Thomas Munro wrote:
> > > Sorry for my radio silence, I got tangled up with a couple of
> > > conferences. I'm planning to look at 0001 and
On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 12:54 PM Fujii Masao
wrote:
>
>
> On 2020/05/27 16:10, Michael Paquier wrote:
> > On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 07:30:54PM +, Bossart, Nathan wrote:
> >> While an assertion in UpdateControlFile() would not have helped us
> >> catch the problem I initially reported, it does s
On Mon, Jun 08, 2020 at 03:25:31AM +, Bossart, Nathan wrote:
> On 6/7/20, 7:50 PM, "Thomas Munro" wrote:
>> I pushed 0001 and 0002, squashed into one commit. I'm not sure about
>> 0003. If we're going to do that, wouldn't it be better to just
>> acquire the lock in that one extra place in St
On 6/7/20, 7:50 PM, "Thomas Munro" wrote:
> I pushed 0001 and 0002, squashed into one commit. I'm not sure about
> 0003. If we're going to do that, wouldn't it be better to just
> acquire the lock in that one extra place in StartupXLOG(), rather than
> introducing the extra parameter?
Thanks!
On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 2:03 PM Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 03, 2020 at 10:56:13AM +1200, Thomas Munro wrote:
> > Sorry for my radio silence, I got tangled up with a couple of
> > conferences. I'm planning to look at 0001 and 0002 shortly.
>
> Thanks!
I pushed 0001 and 0002, squashed int
On Wed, Jun 03, 2020 at 10:56:13AM +1200, Thomas Munro wrote:
> Sorry for my radio silence, I got tangled up with a couple of
> conferences. I'm planning to look at 0001 and 0002 shortly.
Thanks!
--
Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Tue, Jun 2, 2020 at 5:24 PM Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Sun, May 31, 2020 at 09:11:35PM +, Bossart, Nathan wrote:
> > Thanks for the feedback. I've attached a new set of patches.
>
> Thanks for splitting the set. 0001 and 0002 are the minimum set for
> back-patching, and it would be bette
On Sun, May 31, 2020 at 09:11:35PM +, Bossart, Nathan wrote:
> Thanks for the feedback. I've attached a new set of patches.
Thanks for splitting the set. 0001 and 0002 are the minimum set for
back-patching, and it would be better to merge them together. 0003 is
debatable and not an actual b
On 2020/05/27 16:10, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 07:30:54PM +, Bossart, Nathan wrote:
While an assertion in UpdateControlFile() would not have helped us
catch the problem I initially reported, it does seem worthwhile to add
it. I have attached a patch that adds this as
On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 07:30:54PM +, Bossart, Nathan wrote:
> While an assertion in UpdateControlFile() would not have helped us
> catch the problem I initially reported, it does seem worthwhile to add
> it. I have attached a patch that adds this assertion and also
> attempts to fix XLogRepor
On 5/21/20, 9:52 PM, "Thomas Munro" wrote:
> Here's a version with a commit message added. I'll push this to all
> releases in a day or two if there are no objections.
Looks good to me. Thanks!
Nathan
On Sat, May 23, 2020 at 01:00:17AM +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
> Per my quick check, XLogReportParameters() seems to have the similar issue,
> i.e., it updates the control file without taking ControlFileLock.
> Maybe we should fix this at the same time?
Yeah. It also checks the control file values,
On 2020/05/22 13:51, Thomas Munro wrote:
On Tue, May 5, 2020 at 9:51 AM Thomas Munro wrote:
On Tue, May 5, 2020 at 5:53 AM Bossart, Nathan wrote:
I believe I've discovered a race condition between the startup and
checkpointer processes that can cause a CRC mismatch in the pg_control
file.
On Tue, May 5, 2020 at 9:51 AM Thomas Munro wrote:
> On Tue, May 5, 2020 at 5:53 AM Bossart, Nathan wrote:
> > I believe I've discovered a race condition between the startup and
> > checkpointer processes that can cause a CRC mismatch in the pg_control
> > file. If a cluster crashes at the right
On Tue, May 5, 2020 at 5:53 AM Bossart, Nathan wrote:
> I believe I've discovered a race condition between the startup and
> checkpointer processes that can cause a CRC mismatch in the pg_control
> file. If a cluster crashes at the right time, the following error
> appears when you attempt to res
27 matches
Mail list logo
