Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

9.3 pushes duplicate WAL when switching to new timeline #1

Closed
dwsteele opened this issue Apr 1, 2015 · 1 comment
Closed

9.3 pushes duplicate WAL when switching to new timeline #1

dwsteele opened this issue Apr 1, 2015 · 1 comment
Assignees
Labels

Comments

@dwsteele
Copy link
Owner

dwsteele commented Apr 1, 2015

After a restore, 9.3 tries to push WAL to the archive that it got from the archive. This causes errors and the db does not switch timelines.

@dwsteele dwsteele added the bug label Apr 1, 2015
@dwsteele dwsteele self-assigned this Apr 1, 2015
@dwsteele
Copy link
Owner Author

Fixed in a later point release.

Repository owner locked and limited conversation to collaborators Dec 30, 2015
dwsteele pushed a commit that referenced this issue Feb 28, 2019
The original setup for dependencies of partitioned objects had
serious problems:

1. It did not verify that a drop cascading to a partition-child object
also cascaded to at least one of the object's partition parents.  Now,
normally a child object would share all its dependencies with one or
another parent (e.g. a child index's opclass dependencies would be shared
with the parent index), so that this oversight is usually harmless.
But if some dependency failed to fit this pattern, the child could be
dropped while all its parents remain, creating a logically broken
situation.  (It's easy to construct artificial cases that break it,
such as attaching an unrelated extension dependency to the child object
and then dropping the extension.  I'm not sure if any less-artificial
cases exist.)

2. Management of partition dependencies during ATTACH/DETACH PARTITION
was complicated and buggy; for example, after detaching a partition
table it was possible to create cases where a formerly-child index
should be dropped and was not, because the correct set of dependencies
had not been reconstructed.

Less seriously, because multiple partition relationships were
represented identically in pg_depend, there was an order-of-traversal
dependency on which partition parent was cited in error messages.
We also had some pre-existing order-of-traversal hazards for error
messages related to internal and extension dependencies.  This is
cosmetic to users but causes testing problems.

To fix #1, add a check at the end of the partition tree traversal
to ensure that at least one partition parent got deleted.  To fix #2,
establish a new policy that partition dependencies are in addition to,
not instead of, a child object's usual dependencies; in this way
ATTACH/DETACH PARTITION need not cope with adding or removing the
usual dependencies.

To fix the cosmetic problem, distinguish between primary and secondary
partition dependency entries in pg_depend, by giving them different
deptypes.  (They behave identically except for having different
priorities for being cited in error messages.)  This means that the
former 'I' dependency type is replaced with new 'P' and 'S' types.

This also fixes a longstanding bug that after handling an internal
dependency by recursing to the owning object, findDependentObjects
did not verify that the current target was now scheduled for deletion,
and did not apply the current recursion level's objflags to it.
Perhaps that should be back-patched; but in the back branches it
would only matter if some concurrent transaction had removed the
internal-linkage pg_depend entry before the recursive call found it,
or the recursive call somehow failed to find it, both of which seem
unlikely.

Catversion bump because the contents of pg_depend change for
partitioning relationships.

Patch HEAD only.  It's annoying that we're not fixing #2 in v11,
but there seems no practical way to do so given that the problem
is exactly a poor choice of what entries to put in pg_depend.
We can't really fix that while staying compatible with what's
in pg_depend in existing v11 installations.

Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAH2-Wzkypv1R+teZrr71U23J578NnTBt2X8+Y=Odr4pOdW1rXg@mail.gmail.com
dwsteele pushed a commit that referenced this issue Jul 12, 2021
Due to how pg_size_pretty(bigint) was implemented, it's possible that when
given a negative number of bytes that the returning value would not match
the equivalent positive return value when given the equivalent positive
number of bytes.  This was due to two separate issues.

1. The function used bit shifting to convert the number of bytes into
larger units.  The rounding performed by bit shifting is not the same as
dividing.  For example -3 >> 1 = -2, but -3 / 2 = -1.  These two
operations are only equivalent with positive numbers.

2. The half_rounded() macro rounded towards positive infinity.  This meant
that negative numbers rounded towards zero and positive numbers rounded
away from zero.

Here we fix #1 by dividing the values instead of bit shifting.  We fix #2
by adjusting the half_rounded macro always to round away from zero.

Additionally, adjust the pg_size_pretty(numeric) function to be more
explicit that it's using division rather than bit shifting.  A casual
observer might have believed bit shifting was used due to a static
function being named numeric_shift_right.  However, that function was
calculating the divisor from the number of bits and performed division.
Here we make that more clear.  This change is just cosmetic and does not
affect the return value of the numeric version of the function.

Here we also add a set of regression tests both versions of
pg_size_pretty() which test the values directly before and after the
function switches to the next unit.

This bug was introduced in 8a1fab3. Prior to that negative values were
always displayed in bytes.

Author: Dean Rasheed, David Rowley
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAEZATCXnNW4HsmZnxhfezR5FuiGgp+mkY4AzcL5eRGO4fuadWg@mail.gmail.com
Backpatch-through: 9.6, where the bug was introduced.
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant