| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Ashwin Agrawal <aagrawal(at)pivotal(dot)io>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Race conditions with checkpointer and shutdown |
| Date: | 2019-06-13 05:06:22 |
| Message-ID: | 20190613050622.GB1643@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 04:26:23PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Poking at that, I find that a1a789eb5 back-patches reasonably painlessly
> into v11 and v10, but trying to bring it back to 9.6 encounters a pile of
> merge failures. Also, looking at the git logs shows that we did a hell
> of a lot of subtle work on that code (libpqwalreceiver.c in particular)
> during the v10 cycle. So I've got no confidence that successful
> buildfarm/beta1 testing of the HEAD patch means much of anything for
> putting it into pre-v10 branches.
>
> Given that we've seen few if any field reports of this issue, my
> inclination is to back-patch as far as v10, but not take the risk
> and effort involved in going further.
+1 for only a back-patch to v10 per the invasiveness argument. I
think that you have made the right move here.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David Rowley | 2019-06-13 05:24:29 | Re: Cleaning up and speeding up string functions |
| Previous Message | Noah Misch | 2019-06-13 05:01:39 | Re: fix psql \conninfo & \connect when using hostaddr |