Horton

Re: [HACKERS] WAL logging problem in 9.4.3?

Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: Andrew Dunstan <andrew.dunstan@2ndquadrant.com>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi>, "pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org" <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2018-07-18T13:06:22Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 06:42:10AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 8:28 AM, Andrew Dunstan
> <andrew.dunstan@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>> Well, we'd be getting rid of it because of a danger of data loss which we
>> can't otherwise mitigate. Maybe it does need to be backpatched, even if we
>> haven't had complaints.
> 
> What's wrong with the approach proposed in
> http://postgr.es/m/55AFC302.1060805@iki.fi ?

For back-branches that's very invasive so that seems risky to me
particularly seeing the low number of complaints on the matter.
--
Michael

Commits

  1. Add perl2host call missing from a new test file.

  2. Skip WAL for new relfilenodes, under wal_level=minimal.

  3. Revert "Skip WAL for new relfilenodes, under wal_level=minimal."

  4. Back-patch log_newpage_range().

  5. During heap rebuild, lock any TOAST index until end of transaction.

  6. In log_newpage_range(), heed forkNum and page_std arguments.

  7. Back-patch src/test/recovery and PostgresNode from 9.6 to 9.5.

  8. Reduce pg_ctl's reaction time when waiting for postmaster start/stop.

  9. Accelerate end-of-transaction dropping of relations

  10. Redesign the planner's handling of index-descent cost estimation.

  11. Make TRUNCATE do truncate-in-place when processing a relation that was created