Re: WAL logging problem in 9.4.3?

Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>

From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi.kyotaro@lab.ntt.co.jp>, michael.paquier@gmail.com, david@pgmasters.net, hlinnaka@iki.fi, simon@2ndquadrant.com, andres@anarazel.de, masao.fujii@gmail.com, kleptog@svana.org, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Date: 2017-04-08T00:38:35Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> Interesting.  I wonder if it's possible that a relcache invalidation
> would cause these values to get lost for some reason, because that would
> be dangerous.

> I suppose the rationale is that this shouldn't happen because any
> operation that does things this way must hold an exclusive lock on the
> relation.  But that doesn't guarantee that the relcache entry is
> completely stable,

It ABSOLUTELY is not safe.  Relcache flushes can happen regardless of
how strong a lock you hold.

			regards, tom lane


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