From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
---|---|
To: | Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> |
Cc: | hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi, amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com, dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Problem while setting the fpw with SIGHUP |
Date: | 2018-04-12 08:10:28 |
Message-ID: | 20180412081028.GC19289@paquier.xyz |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 04:59:10PM +0900, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote:
> At Thu, 12 Apr 2018 14:07:53 +0900, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote in <20180412050753(dot)GA19289(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
>> I have been able to spend a couple of hours on your patch, wrapping my
>> mind on your stuff. So what I had in mind was something like this type
>> of scenario:
>
> Thank for the precise explanation.
Just to be clear and to avoid incorrect conclusion. This is the type of
scenarios I imagined about when I read your previous email, concluding
such scenarios those cannot apply per the strong assumption on
SharedRecoveryInProgress your patch heavily relies on. In short I have
no objections.
>> (The latest patch is a mix of two patches.)
>
> Sorry I counld get this.
The patch called v2-0001-Change-FPW-handling.patch posted on
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20180412.103430.133595350.horiguchi.kyotaro%40lab.ntt.co.jp,
which is the latest version available, is a mix of the patch you are
creating for this thread and of a patch aimed a fixing an issue with
partition range handling.
--
Michael
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Amit Langote | 2018-04-12 10:06:44 | Re: crash with sql language partition support function |
Previous Message | Kyotaro HORIGUCHI | 2018-04-12 07:59:10 | Re: Problem while setting the fpw with SIGHUP |