| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Petr Jelinek <petr(dot)jelinek(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: More race conditions in logical replication |
| Date: | 2017-07-26 23:30:21 |
| Message-ID: | 20170726233021.te3kpvgp2me5uuyt@alvherre.pgsql |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Hmm, yeah, that's not good. However, I didn't like the idea of putting
> it inside the locked area, as it's too much code. Instead I added just
> before acquiring the spinlock. We cancel the sleep unconditionally
> later on if we didn't need to sleep after all.
I just noticed that Jacana failed again in the subscription test, and it
looks like it's related to this. I'll take a look tomorrow if no one
beats me to it.
https://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_log.pl?nm=jacana&dt=2017-07-26%2014%3A39%3A54
--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Masahiko Sawada | 2017-07-27 00:31:12 | Re: Refreshing subscription relation state inside a transaction block |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2017-07-26 21:43:49 | Re: asynchronous execution |