Re: [HACKERS] [BUGS] PITR potentially broken in 9.2
On 5 December 2012 00:35, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: I wrote: So apparently this is something we broke since Nov 18. Don't know what yet --- any thoughts? Further experimentation shows that reverting commit ffc3172e4e3caee0327a7e4126b5e7a3c8a1c8cf makes it work. So there's something wrong/incomplete about that fix. This is a bit urgent since we now have to consider whether to withdraw 9.2.2 and issue a hasty 9.2.3. Do we have a regression here since 9.2.1, and if so how bad is it? I'll look at this now. -- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] [BUGS] PITR potentially broken in 9.2
I wrote: So apparently this is something we broke since Nov 18. Don't know what yet --- any thoughts? Further experimentation shows that reverting commit ffc3172e4e3caee0327a7e4126b5e7a3c8a1c8cf makes it work. So there's something wrong/incomplete about that fix. This is a bit urgent since we now have to consider whether to withdraw 9.2.2 and issue a hasty 9.2.3. Do we have a regression here since 9.2.1, and if so how bad is it? regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] [BUGS] PITR potentially broken in 9.2
On 2012-12-04 19:35:48 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: I wrote: So apparently this is something we broke since Nov 18. Don't know what yet --- any thoughts? Further experimentation shows that reverting commit ffc3172e4e3caee0327a7e4126b5e7a3c8a1c8cf makes it work. So there's something wrong/incomplete about that fix. ISTM that the code should check ControlFile-backupEndRequired, not just check for an invalid backupEndPoint. I haven't looked into the specific issue though. This is a bit urgent since we now have to consider whether to withdraw 9.2.2 and issue a hasty 9.2.3. Do we have a regression here since 9.2.1, and if so how bad is it? Not sure. Greetings, Andres Freund -- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] [BUGS] PITR potentially broken in 9.2
On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 4:35 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: I wrote: So apparently this is something we broke since Nov 18. Don't know what yet --- any thoughts? Further experimentation shows that reverting commit ffc3172e4e3caee0327a7e4126b5e7a3c8a1c8cf makes it work. So there's something wrong/incomplete about that fix. I can't independently vouch for the correctness of that fix, but I can vouch that there is so far no evidence that it is incorrect. It is re-revealing an undesirable (but safe, as far as we know) behavior that is present in 9.1.x but which was temporarily hidden by a corruption-risk bug in 9.2.0 and 9.2.1. This is a bit urgent since we now have to consider whether to withdraw 9.2.2 and issue a hasty 9.2.3. Do we have a regression here since 9.2.1, and if so how bad is it? I don't think this is urgent. The error-message issue in 9.1.6 and 9.2.2 is merely annoying, while the early-opening one in 9.2.0 and 9.2.1 seems fundamentally unsafe. Cheers, Jeff -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
