Re: Key management with tests

Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>

From: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>

To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>

Cc: Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com>, Tom Kincaid <tomjohnkincaid@gmail.com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>, Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>, Masahiko Sawada <masahiko.sawada@2ndquadrant.com>

Date: 2021-03-18T18:49:00Z

Lists: pgsql-hackers

Commits

Same data as JSON: GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources. API reference →

Rethink method for assigning OIDs to the template0 and postgres DBs.
- 2cb1272445d2 15.0 landed
pg_upgrade: Preserve database OIDs.
- aa01051418f1 15.0 landed
pg_upgrade: Preserve relfilenodes and tablespace OIDs.
- 9a974cbcba00 15.0 landed
Fix for new Boolean node
- cf925936ecc0 15.0 cited
Improve error handling of HMAC computations
- 5513dc6a304d 15.0 cited
Add macro RelationIsPermanent() to report relation permanence
- 95d77149c535 14.0 landed
Enhance nbtree index tuple deletion.
- d168b666823b 14.0 cited

Attachments

cfe-10-hint_over_cfe-09-test.diff.gz (application/gzip) patch

On Thu, Mar 18, 2021 at 02:37:43PM -0300, Álvaro Herrera wrote:
> On 2021-Mar-18, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > This is discussed in src/backend/access/transam/README, specifically the
> > section that talks about Skipping WAL for New RelFileNode.  Basically,
> > it's the 'wal_level=minimal' optimization which allows WAL to be
> > skipped.
> 
> Hmm ... that talks about WAL-skipping *changes*, not WAL-skipping
> *relations*.  I thought WAL-skipping meant unlogged relations, but
> I understand now that that's unrelated.  In the transam/README, WAL-skip
> means a change in a transaction in a relfilenode that, if rolled back,
> would disappear; and I'm not sure I understand how the code is handling
> the case that a relation is under that condition.
> 
> This caught my attention because a comment says "encryption does not
> support WAL-skipped relations", but there's no direct change to the
> definition of RelFileNodeSkippingWAL() to account for that.  Perhaps I
> am just overlooking something, since I'm just skimming anyway.

First, thanks for looking at these patches --- I know it isn't easy.

Second, you are right that I equated WAL-skipping relfilenodes with
relations, and this was wrong.  I have updated the attached patch to use
the term WAL-skipping "relfilenodes", and checked the rest of the
patches for any incorrect 'skipping' term, but didn't find any.

If "WAL-skipping relfilenodes" is not clear enough, we should probably
rename RelFileNodeSkippingWAL().

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

  If only the physical world exists, free will is an illusion.