Обсуждение: [HACKERS] Reversed sync check in pg_receivewal

Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> writes:
> Attached patch reverses the check, and adds a failure message. I'd
> appreciate a quick review in case I have the logic backwards in my head...

I think the patch is correct, but if there's any documentation of the
walmethod APIs that would allow one to assert which side of the API got
this wrong, I sure don't see it.  Would it be unreasonable to insist
on some documentation around that?
        regards, tom lane

On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 9:41 PM, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote:
> This bug seems to have snuck in there with the introduction of walmethods.
> AFAICT we are testing the result of sync() backwards, so whenever a partial
> segment exists for pg_receivewal, it will fail. It will then unlink the
> file, so when it retries 5 seconds later it works.
>
> It also doesn't log the failure. Oops.
>
> Attached patch reverses the check, and adds a failure message. I'd
> appreciate a quick review in case I have the logic backwards in my head...

This has been fat-fingered in 56c7d8d4, and looking around I am not
seeing similar mistakes. Thanks for the fix.
-- 
Michael

Hi Magnus,

> Attached patch reverses the check, and adds a failure message. I'd
> appreciate a quick review in case I have the logic backwards in my head...

Well, I can state that `make check-world` passes on my laptop and that
code seems to be right. However documentation to WalWriteMethod could
probably be improved. Currently there is none.

--
Best regards,
Aleksander Alekseev

Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> writes:
> On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 3:19 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> I think the patch is correct, but if there's any documentation of the
>> walmethod APIs that would allow one to assert which side of the API got
>> this wrong, I sure don't see it.  Would it be unreasonable to insist
>> on some documentation around that?

> Would you say comments in the struct in walmethods.h is enough, or were you
> thinking actual sgml docs when you commented that?

This is just internal to pg_basebackup isn't it?  I think comments in
walmethods.h would be plenty.
        regards, tom lane

Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> writes:
> Something like the attached?

Not sure about

+ * All methods that have a failure path will set errno on failure.

Given that you've got a getlasterror method, I don't think that's really
the API invariant is it?  If it were, you'd just have the callers doing
strerror(errno) for themselves.  I think maybe a more accurate statement
would be
* All methods that have a failure return indicator will set state* allowing the getlasterror() method to return a
suitablemessage.* Commonly, errno is this state (or part of it); so callers must take* care not to clobber errno
betweena failed method call and use of* getlasterror() to retrieve the message.
 

Also:

* the arguments of open_for_write() could stand to be explained

* what's the return value of finish()?

* wouldn't it be better to declare getlasterror() as returning "const char *"?
        regards, tom lane