Re: pg_rewind WAL segments deletion pitfall

On 2023-08-22 14:32, Michael Paquier wrote:
Thanks for your review!

> On Fri, Aug 18, 2023 at 03:40:57PM +0900, torikoshia wrote:
>> Thanks for the patch, I've marked this as ready-for-committer.
>> 
>> BTW, this issue can be considered a bug, right?
>> I think it would be appropriate to provide backpatch.
> 
> Hmm, I agree that there is a good argument in back-patching as we have
> the WAL files between the redo LSN and the divergence LSN, but
> pg_rewind is not smart enough to keep them around.  If the archives of
> the primary were not able to catch up, the old primary is as good as
> kaput, and restore_command won't help here.

True.
I also imagine that in the typical failover scenario where the target 
cluster was shut down soon after the divergence and pg_rewind was 
executed without much time, we can avoid this kind of 'requested WAL 
segment has already removed' error by preventing pg_rewind from deleting 
necessary WALs.


> I don't like much this patch.  While it takes correctly advantage of
> the backward record read logic from SimpleXLogPageRead() able to
> handle correctly timeline jumps, it creates a hidden dependency in the
> code between the hash table from filemap.c and the page callback.
> Wouldn't it be simpler to build a list of the segment names using the
> information from WALOpenSegment and build this list in
> findLastCheckpoint()?  Also, I am wondering if we should be smarter
> with any potential conflict handling between the source and the
> target, rather than just enforcing a FILE_ACTION_NONE for all these
> files.  In short, could it be better to copy the WAL file from the
> source if it exists there?
> 
> +       /*
> +        * Some entries (WAL segments) already have an action assigned
> +        * (see SimpleXLogPageRead()).
> +        */
> +       if (entry->action == FILE_ACTION_UNDECIDED)
> +           entry->action = decide_file_action(entry);
> 
> This change makes me a bit uneasy, per se my previous comment with the
> additional code dependencies.
> 
> I think that this scenario deserves a test case.  If one wants to
> emulate a delay in WAL archiving, it is possible to set
> archive_command to a command that we know will fail, for instance.
> --
> Michael

Bungina, are you going to respond to these comments?

-- 
Regards,

--
Atsushi Torikoshi
NTT DATA Group Corporation