Horton

Re: [HACKERS] WAL logging problem in 9.4.3?

Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
To: Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com>
Cc: Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota.ntt@gmail.com>, robertmhaas@gmail.com, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org, 9erthalion6@gmail.com, andrew.dunstan@2ndquadrant.com, hlinnaka@iki.fi, michael@paquier.xyz
Date: 2020-03-21T19:04:50Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
Wow, this thread started in 2015.  :-O

	Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2015 00:05:24 +0200

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

On Sat, Mar 21, 2020 at 12:01:27PM -0700, Noah Misch wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 15, 2020 at 08:46:47PM -0700, Noah Misch wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 04, 2020 at 04:29:19PM +0900, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
> > > The attached is back-patches from 9.5 through master.
> > 
> > Thanks.  I've made some edits.  I'll plan to push the attached patches on
> > Friday or Saturday.
> 
> Pushed, after adding a missing "break" to gist_identify() and tweaking two
> more comments.  However, a diverse minority of buildfarm members are failing
> like this, in most branches:
> 
> Mar 21 13:16:37 #   Failed test 'wal_level = minimal, SET TABLESPACE, hint bit'
> Mar 21 13:16:37 #   at t/018_wal_optimize.pl line 231.
> Mar 21 13:16:37 #          got: '1'
> Mar 21 13:16:37 #     expected: '2'
> Mar 21 13:16:46 # Looks like you failed 1 test of 34.
> Mar 21 13:16:46 [13:16:46] t/018_wal_optimize.pl ................ 
>   -- https://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_log.pl?nm=crake&dt=2020-03-21%2016%3A52%3A05
> 
> Since I run two of the failing animals, I expect to reproduce this soon.
> 
> fairywren failed differently on 9.5; I have not yet studied it:
> https://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_log.pl?nm=fairywren&dt=2020-03-21%2018%3A01%3A10
> 
> > > It lacks a part of TAP infrastructure nowadays we have, but I
> > > want to have the test (and it actually found a bug I made during this
> > > work). So I added a patch to back-patch TestLib.pm, PostgresNode.pm
> > > and RecursiveCopy.pm along with 018_wal_optimize.pl.
> > > (0004-Add-TAP-test-for-WAL-skipping-feature.patch)
> > 
> > That is a good idea.  Rather than make it specific to this test, I would like
> > to back-patch all applicable test files from 9.6 src/test/recovery.  I'll plan
> > to push that one part on Thursday.
> 
> That push did not cause failures.
> 
> 

-- 
  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        https://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB                             https://enterprisedb.com

+ As you are, so once was I.  As I am, so you will be. +
+                      Ancient Roman grave inscription +

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