| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Petr Jelinek <petr(dot)jelinek(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: More race conditions in logical replication |
| Date: | 2017-08-08 18:11:31 |
| Message-ID: | 20170808181131.mu4fjepuh5m75cyq@alvherre.pgsql |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 8:14 PM, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> > BTW, I noticed that the PG_WAIT_LOCK value that we're using for wait
> > event here (and in the replication slot case) is bogus. We probably
> > need something new here.
>
> Yeah, if you're adding a new wait point, you should add document a new
> constant in the appropriate section, probably something under
> PG_WAIT_IPC in this case.
Here's a patch. It turned to be a bit larger than I initially expected.
Wait events are a maintainability fail IMO. I think we need to rethink
this stuff; using generated files from a single source containing the C
symbol, text name and doc blurb sounds better. That can wait for pg11
though.
--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| 0001-Fix-various-inadequacies-in-wait-events.patch | text/plain | 10.4 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2017-08-08 18:22:36 | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Use MINVALUE/MAXVALUE instead of UNBOUNDED for range partition b |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2017-08-08 17:20:15 | Re: Server crash (FailedAssertion) due to catcache refcount mis-handling |