| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Yuli Khodorkovskiy <yuli(dot)khodorkovskiy(at)crunchydata(dot)com>, pgsql-bugs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: BUG #15804: Assertion failure when using logging_collector with EXEC_BACKEND |
| Date: | 2019-05-19 02:10:43 |
| Message-ID: | 20190519021043.7eojo2eej3zvzgar@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
Hi,
On 2019-05-18 12:18:28 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> At this point I agree with Michael that reverting 57431a911 is the most
> prudent thing to do for beta1.
Seems reasonable at this point in time :(. A bit annoyed that
longer-existing crappyness around the windows port affects a relatively
platform independent patch this much.
> (I'm also getting annoyed that Peter, as the original author of this
> commit, isn't doing anything about the issue.)
Yea, I'm confused / annoyed about that too.
> I wouldn't be totally opposed to un-reverting after beta1, if a
> better-tested patch emerges. But we don't have such a patch today
> and I don't see how we'll get there this weekend.
Right. I think if somebody puts some elbow grease into that that'd be a
reasonable course. But so far Peter's not showing up, so ...
Greetings,
Andres Freund
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2019-05-19 15:05:22 | Re: BUG #15804: Assertion failure when using logging_collector with EXEC_BACKEND |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2019-05-19 00:43:45 | Re: BUG #15804: Assertion failure when using logging_collector with EXEC_BACKEND |