Re: Race conditions with checkpointer and shutdown

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Ashwin Agrawal <aagrawal(at)pivotal(dot)io>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Race conditions with checkpointer and shutdown
Date: 2019-06-12 20:26:23
Message-ID: 15868.1560371183@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On 2019-Jun-12, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Should we do that now, or wait till after next week's releases?

> IMO this has been hammered enough in master, and we still have a few
> days in the back-branches for buildfarm, that it's okay to do it now.

Poking at that, I find that a1a789eb5 back-patches reasonably painlessly
into v11 and v10, but trying to bring it back to 9.6 encounters a pile of
merge failures. Also, looking at the git logs shows that we did a hell
of a lot of subtle work on that code (libpqwalreceiver.c in particular)
during the v10 cycle. So I've got no confidence that successful
buildfarm/beta1 testing of the HEAD patch means much of anything for
putting it into pre-v10 branches.

Given that we've seen few if any field reports of this issue, my
inclination is to back-patch as far as v10, but not take the risk
and effort involved in going further.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2019-06-12 21:06:40 Re: PG 12 draft release notes
Previous Message Alvaro Herrera 2019-06-12 20:18:36 Re: pgbench rate limiting changes transaction latency computation