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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

WalProposerRecovery should check that all necessary WAL is provided by Safekeeper #1014

Closed
yeputons opened this issue Nov 2, 2021 · 2 comments
Closed

WalProposerRecovery should check that all necessary WAL is provided by Safekeeper #1014

yeputons opened this issue Nov 2, 2021 · 2 comments
Labels
c/storage Component: storage

Comments

@yeputons
Copy link
Contributor

yeputons commented Nov 2, 2021

See the initial comment by @arssher here: #777 (comment)

..., there is a small bug in WalProposerRecovery: proposer should check that he is provided with enough wal till its epochStartLsn, not bail out on some error earlier. ...
There is also a small risk of overproviding wal proposer with too much WAL in the presence of concurrent compute, but 1) this can be checked on proposer side as well 2) it is eventually harmless as terms will settle the situation, though better to notice this early.
@stepashka stepashka transferred this issue from neondatabase/postgres Dec 16, 2021
@stepashka stepashka added compute c/storage/safekeeper Component: storage: safekeeper labels Dec 16, 2021
@stepashka
Copy link
Member

this won't be necessary if we implement #1012

@stepashka stepashka added c/storage Component: storage and removed c/storage/safekeeper Component: storage: safekeeper c/cloud/compute labels Jan 27, 2022
@petuhovskiy
Copy link
Member

This task was confused with #861, and this issue was fixed by neondatabase/postgres#147.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
c/storage Component: storage
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

No branches or pull requests
3 participants
@stepashka @yeputons @petuhovskiy