Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 11:08 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> elog(FATAL) is *certainly* not a better idea. I think there's really
>> nothing that can be done, you just have to silently ignore the error.
> Hmm.. some functions called by a signal handler use elog(FATAL), e.g.,
> RecoveryConflictInterrupt() do that when unknown conflict mode is given
> as an argument. Are these calls unsafe, too?
[ shrug... ] I stated before that the Hot Standby patch is doing
utterly unsafe things in signal handlers. Simon rejected that.
I am waiting for irrefutable evidence to emerge from the field
(and am very confident that it will be forthcoming...) before
I argue with him further. Meanwhile, I'm not going to accept anything
unsafe in a core facility like this patch is going to be.
regards, tom lane
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Marko Tiikkaja||Date: 2010-09-03 14:10:44|
|Subject: Re: regclass without error?|
|Previous:||From: Stephen Frost||Date: 2010-09-03 13:56:12|
|Subject: Re: Streaming a base backup from master|