Re: Fix possible 'unexpected data beyond EOF' on replica restart
| От | Heikki Linnakangas |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Fix possible 'unexpected data beyond EOF' on replica restart |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | 7e5af8a3-45fe-4c37-9f66-e8bde6c5012b@iki.fi обсуждение |
| Ответ на | Re: Fix possible 'unexpected data beyond EOF' on replica restart (Anthonin Bonnefoy <anthonin.bonnefoy@datadoghq.com>) |
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 12/01/2026 10:34, Anthonin Bonnefoy wrote: > Here's a new version with a bit of rewording. Applied to all branches. Thanks! I left out this comment change on smgrtruncate(): > @@ -870,6 +870,9 @@ smgrnblocks_cached(SMgrRelation reln, ForkNumber forknum) > * be called in a critical section, but the current size must be checked > * outside the critical section, and no interrupts or smgr functions relating > * to this relation should be called in between. > + * > + * If the specified number of blocks is higher than the current size, the > + * request is ignored when we are InRecovery, otherwise, an error is raised. > */ > void > smgrtruncate(SMgrRelation reln, ForkNumber *forknum, int nforks, I would love to have a comment along those lines, but I think it's misleading here, because smgrtruncate() actually does a few things even when the requested size is greater than the current size: it nevertheless calls DropRelationBuffers(), CacheInvalidateSmgr(), and updates the cached sizes in the SmgrRelation. So it seems misleading to say the request is ignored. I wasn't sure how to phrase that, so I just left out that comment change. I'm open to proposals on a good wording though. (The similar comment in mdnblocks() is accurate, mdnblocks() bails out very early, so I kept that) - Heikki
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: