| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>, David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Intermittent buildfarm failures on wrasse |
| Date: | 2022-04-15 18:14:47 |
| Message-ID: | 1737834.1650046487@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> On 2022-04-15 12:36:52 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Yeah, I was also thinking about a flag in PGPROC being a more reliable
>> way to do this. Is there anything besides walsenders that should set
>> that flag?
> Not that I can think of. It's only because of hs_feedback that we need
> to. I guess it's possible that somebody build some extension that needs
> something similar, but then they'd need to set that flag...
Here's a WIP patch for that. The only exciting thing in it is that
because of some undocumented cowboy programming in walsender.c, the
Assert((proc->statusFlags & (~PROC_COPYABLE_FLAGS)) == 0);
in ProcArrayInstallRestoredXmin fires unless we skip that.
I could use some help filling in the XXX comments, because it's far
from clear to me *why* walsenders need this to happen.
regards, tom lane
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| cleaner-walsender-handling-wip.patch | text/x-diff | 2.9 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2022-04-15 19:01:38 | Re: Intermittent buildfarm failures on wrasse |
| Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2022-04-15 18:12:34 | Re: Intermittent buildfarm failures on wrasse |