Sorry, just one fix. (omitting some typos, though..) At Wed, 19 Feb 2020 17:29:08 +0900 (JST), Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota....@gmail.com> wrote in > At Tue, 18 Feb 2020 23:44:52 -0800, Noah Misch <n...@leadboat.com> wrote in > > I think attached v35nm is ready for commit to master. Would anyone like to > > talk me out of back-patching this? I would not enjoy back-patching it, but > > it's hard to justify lack of back-patch for a data-loss bug. > > > > Notable changes since v34: > > > > - Separate a few freestanding fixes into their own patches. > > All of the three patches look fine. > > > On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 07:28:31PM +0900, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote: > > > --- a/src/backend/catalog/storage.c > > > +++ b/src/backend/catalog/storage.c > > > @@ -388,13 +388,7 @@ RelationPreTruncate(Relation rel) > > > /* Record largest maybe-unsynced block of files under tracking */ > > > pending = hash_search(pendingSyncHash, &(rel->rd_smgr->smgr_rnode.node), > > > HASH_FIND, NULL); > > > - if (pending) > > > - { > > > - BlockNumber nblocks = smgrnblocks(rel->rd_smgr, MAIN_FORKNUM); > > > - > > > - if (pending->max_truncated < nblocks) > > > - pending->max_truncated = nblocks; > > > - } > > > + pending->is_truncated = true; > > > > - Fix this crashing when "pending" is NULL, as it is in this test case: > > > > begin; > > create temp table t (); > > create table t2 (); -- cause pendingSyncHash to exist > > truncate t; > > rollback; > > That's terrible... Thanks for fixint it. > > > - Fix the "deleted while still in use" problem that Thomas Munro reported, > > by > > removing the heap_create() change. Restoring the saved rd_createSubid had > > made obsolete the heap_create() change. check-world now passes with > > wal_level=minimal and CLOBBER_CACHE_ALWAYS. > > Ok, as in the previous mail. > > > - Set rd_droppedSubid in RelationForgetRelation(), not > > RelationClearRelation(). RelationForgetRelation() knows it is processing > > a > > drop, but RelationClearRelation() could only infer that from > > circumstantial > > evidence. This seems more future-proof to me. > > Agreed. Different from RelationClearRelatoin, RelationForgetRelation > is called only for "drop"ing the relation. > > > - When reusing an index build, instead of storing the dropped relid in the > > IndexStmt and opening the dropped relcache entry in ATExecAddIndex(), > > store > > the subid fields in the IndexStmt. This is less code, and I felt > > RelationIdGetRelationCache() invited misuse. > > Hmm. I'm not sure that index_create having the new subid parameters is > good. And the last if(OidIsValid) clause handles storage persistence > so I did that there. But I don't strongly against it.
Hmm. I'm not sure that index_create having the new subid parameters is good. And the last if(OidIsValid) clause in AtExecAddIndex handles storage persistence so I did that there. But I don't strongly against it. > Please give a bit more time to look it. regards. -- Kyotaro Horiguchi NTT Open Source Software Center