Horton

Re: using an end-of-recovery record in all cases

Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>
To: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123@gmail.com>, Amul Sul <sulamul@gmail.com>, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>, Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota.ntt@gmail.com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Date: 2022-04-20T17:16:20Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
On Thu, Apr 21, 2022 at 5:02 AM Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com> wrote:
> I do see the problem if we drop an existing relation, crash, reuse the
> filenode, and then crash again (all within the same checkpoint cycle).  The
> first recovery would remove the tombstone file, and the second recovery
> would wipe out the new relation's files.

Right, the double-crash case is what I was worrying about.  I'm not
sure, but it might even be more likely than usual that you'll reuse
the same relfilenode after the first crash, because the OID allocator
will start from the same value.

Commits

  1. Revert "Add new simple TAP test for tablespaces."

  2. Remove unnecessary call to ReadCheckpointRecord().