After XLOG_DBASE_CREATE_FILE_COPY, a correct incremental backup needs
to copy in full everything with the database and tablespace OID
mentioned in that record; but that record doesn't specifically mention
the blocks, or even the relfilenumbers, of the affected relations.
As a result, we were failing to copy data that we should have copied.
To fix, enter the DB OID and tablespace OID into the block reference
table with relfilenumber 0 and limit block 0; and treat that as a
limit block of 0 for every relfilenumber whose DB OID and tablespace
OID match.
Also, add a test case.
Patch by me, reviewed by Noah Misch.
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CA+Tgmob0xa=ByvGLMdAgkUZyVQE=r4nyYZ_VEa40FCfEDFnTKA@mail.gmail.com
as determined by include-what-you-use (IWYU)
While IWYU also suggests to *add* a bunch of #include's (which is its
main purpose), this patch does not do that. In some cases, a more
specific #include replaces another less specific one.
Some manual adjustments of the automatic result:
- IWYU currently doesn't know about includes that provide global
variable declarations (like -Wmissing-variable-declarations), so
those includes are being kept manually.
- All includes for port(ability) headers are being kept for now, to
play it safe.
- No changes of catalog/pg_foo.h to catalog/pg_foo_d.h, to keep the
patch from exploding in size.
Note that this patch touches just *.c files, so nothing declared in
header files changes in hidden ways.
As a small example, in src/backend/access/transam/rmgr.c, some IWYU
pragma annotations are added to handle a special case there.
Discussion: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/af837490-6b2f-46df-ba05-37ea6a6653fc%40eisentraut.org
Now that BackendId was just another index into the proc array, it was
redundant with the 0-based proc numbers used in other places. Replace
all usage of backend IDs with proc numbers.
The only place where the term "backend id" remains is in a few pgstat
functions that expose backend IDs at the SQL level. Those IDs are now
in fact 0-based ProcNumbers too, but the documentation still calls
them "backend ids". That term still seems appropriate to describe what
the numbers are, so I let it be.
One user-visible effect is that pg_temp_0 is now a valid temp schema
name, for backend with ProcNumber 0.
Reviewed-by: Andres Freund
Discussion: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/8171f1aa-496f-46a6-afc3-c46fe7a9b407@iki.fi
Previously, some callers requested XLOG_BLCKSZ bytes
unconditionally. While this did not cause a problem, because the extra
bytes are ignored, it's confusing and makes it harder to add safety
checks. Additionally, the comment about zero padding was incorrect.
With this commit, all callers request the number of bytes they
actually need.
Author: Bharath Rupireddy
Reviewed-by: Kyotaro Horiguchi
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CALj2ACWBRFac2TingD3PE3w2EBHXUHY3=AEEZPJmqhpEOBGExg@mail.gmail.com
This makes it possible to access information about the progress
of WAL summarization from SQL. The previously-added functions
pg_available_wal_summaries() and pg_wal_summary_contents() only
examine on-disk state, but this function exposes information from
the server's shared memory.
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CA+Tgmobvqqj-DW9F7uUzT-cQqs6wcVb-Xhs=w=hzJnXSE-kRGw@mail.gmail.com
I don't think there's a real problem here, because if we reach
the loop over 'tles' then we will either find at least one
TimeLineHistoryEntry such that oldest_segno != 0, in which case
unsummarized_lsn will be initialized, or else unsummarized_tli
will remain 0 and an error will occur before unsummarized_lsn
is used for anything. But some compilers are complainining, as
reported on list by Nathan Bossart and off-list by Andrew Dunstan.
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/20231223215147.GA69623@nathanxps13
When active, this process writes WAL summary files to
$PGDATA/pg_wal/summaries. Each summary file contains information for a
certain range of LSNs on a certain TLI. For each relation, it stores a
"limit block" which is 0 if a relation is created or destroyed within
a certain range of WAL records, or otherwise the shortest length to
which the relation was truncated during that range of WAL records, or
otherwise InvalidBlockNumber. In addition, it stores a list of blocks
which have been modified during that range of WAL records, but
excluding blocks which were removed by truncation after they were
modified and never subsequently modified again.
In other words, it tells us which blocks need to copied in case of an
incremental backup covering that range of WAL records. But this
doesn't yet add the capability to actually perform an incremental
backup; the next patch will do that.
A new parameter summarize_wal enables or disables this new background
process. The background process also automatically deletes summary
files that are older than wal_summarize_keep_time, if that parameter
has a non-zero value and the summarizer is configured to run.
Patch by me, with some design help from Dilip Kumar and Andres Freund.
Reviewed by Matthias van de Meent, Dilip Kumar, Jakub Wartak, Peter
Eisentraut, and Álvaro Herrera.
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CA+TgmoYOYZfMCyOXFyC-P+-mdrZqm5pP2N7S-r0z3_402h9rsA@mail.gmail.com
Peter Eisentraut
Robert Haas
Heikki Linnakangas
Jeff Davis
Bruce Momjian