Re: non-exclusive backup cleanup is mildly broken

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: non-exclusive backup cleanup is mildly broken
Date: 2019-12-17 20:48:40
Message-ID: 15092.1576615720@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

I wrote:
> Took a quick look. I agree that this seems a lot cleaner than the
> alternative proposals. I'd suggest however that the header comment
> for do_pg_abort_backup could do with more work, perhaps along the
> lines of "The odd-looking signature allows this to be registered
> directly as a shmem_exit handler".

> Personally I'd have kept the handler as a separate function that's just
> a one-line wrapper around "void do_pg_abort_backup(bool emit_warning)".
> We don't usually treat callbacks as functions to be also called in
> their own right. But if you don't want to do that, I'll settle for an
> acknowledgement of the hack in the comment.

Oh, scratch that --- looking closer, I see that the only two use-cases in
the patched code are via before_shmem_exit and PG_ENSURE_ERROR_CLEANUP,
and both of those require a function with the signature of an on_exit
callback. So there's no need for a separate wrapper because this isn't
going to be called any other way. I still recommend amending the
comment to explain why it has this signature, though.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2019-12-17 21:12:49 Re: tableam vs. TOAST
Previous Message Tom Lane 2019-12-17 20:42:34 Re: client auth docs seem to have devolved