From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: termination of backend waiting for sync rep generates a junk log message |
Date: | 2011-10-19 04:37:17 |
Message-ID: | 1478.1318999037@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 11:27 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> One thing worth asking is why we're willing to violate half a dozen
>> different coding rules if we see ProcDiePending, yet we're perfectly
>> happy to rely on the client understanding a WARNING for the
>> QueryCancelPending case. Another is whether this whole function isn't
>> complete BS in the first place, since it appears to be coded on the
>> obviously-false assumption that nothing it calls can throw elog(ERROR)
>> --- and of course, if any of those functions do throw ERROR, all the
>> argumentation here goes out the window.
> Well, there is a general problem that anything which throws an ERROR
> too late in the commit path is Evil; and sync rep makes that worse to
> the extent that it adds more stuff late in the commit path, but it
> didn't invent the problem. What it did do is add stuff late in the
> commit path that can block for a potentially unbounded period of time,
> and I don't see that there are any solutions to that problem that
> aren't somewhat grotty.
No doubt, but fantasizing about what you are or are not controlling
doesn't help ... and AFAICT this code is mostly fantasy. Anyway,
I don't have a better proposal right offhand; will think about it.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jeff Davis | 2011-10-19 04:47:13 | Re: (patch) regression diffs on collate.linux.utf8 test |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2011-10-19 04:21:42 | Re: Adding CORRESPONDING to Set Operations |