Robert Haas <robertmhaas@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 12:00 PM, Andres Freund <andres@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On 2015-06-05 11:43:45 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >>> So where are we on this? Are we ready to schedule a new set of >>> back-branch releases? If not, what issues remain to be looked at? >> We're currently still doing bad things while the database is in an >> inconsistent state (i.e. read from SLRUs and truncate based on the >> results of that). It's quite easy to reproduce base backup startup >> failures. >> >> On the other hand, that's not new. And the fix requires, afaics, a new >> type of WAL record (issued very infrequently). I'll post a first version >> of the patch, rebased ontop of Robert's commit, tonight or tomorrow. I >> guess we can then decide what we'd like to do. > There are at least two other known issues that seem like they should > be fixed before we release: > 1. The problem that we might truncate an SLRU members page away when > it's in the buffers, but not drop it from the buffers, leading to a > failure when we try to write it later. > 2. Thomas's bug fix for another longstanding but that occurs when you > run his checkpoint-segment-boundary.sh script. > I think we might want to try to fix one or both of those before > cutting a new release. I'm less sold on the idea of installing > WAL-logging in this minor release. That probably needs to be done, > but right now we've got stuff that worked in early 9.3.X release and > is now broken, and I'm in favor of fixing that first. Okay, but if we're not committing today to a release wrap on Monday, I don't see it happening till after PGCon. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
