Re: Back-branch update releases coming in a couple weeks

From: "Fujii Masao" <masao.fujii@gmail.com>
> On Sun, Jan 27, 2013 at 12:17 AM, MauMau <maumau307@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Although you said the fix will solve my problem, I don't feel it will. 
>> The
>> discussion is about the crash when the standby "re"starts after the 
>> primary
>> vacuums and truncates a table.  On the other hand, in my case, the 
>> standby
>> crashed during failover (not at restart), emitting a message that some 
>> WAL
>> record refers to an "uninitialized" page (not a non-existent page) of an
>> "index" (not a table).
>>
>> In addition, fujii_test.sh did not reproduce the mentioned crash on
>> PostgreSQL 9.1.6.
>>
>> I'm sorry to cause you trouble, but could you elaborate on how the fix
>> relates to my case?
>
> Maybe I had not been understanding your problem correctly.
> Could you show the self-contained test case which reproduces the problem?
> Is the problem still reproducible in REL9_1_STABLE?

As I said before, it's very hard to reproduce the problem.  All what I did 
is to repeat the following sequence:

1. run "pg_ctl stop -mi" against the primary while the applications were 
performing INSERT/UPDATE/SELECT.
2. run "pg_ctl promote" against the standby of synchronous streaming 
standby.
3. run pg_basebackup on the stopped (original) primary to create a new 
standby, and start the new standby.

I did this failover test dozens of times, probably more than a hundred.  And 
I encountered the crash only once.

Although I saw the problem only once, the result is catastrophic.  So, I 
really wish Heiki's patch (in cooperation with Horiguchi-san and you) could 
fix the issue.

Do you think of anything?

Regards
MauMau