| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
| Cc: | Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>, guofenglinux(at)gmail(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Crash after a call to pg_backup_start() |
| Date: | 2022-10-24 09:39:19 |
| Message-ID: | 20221024093919.miogwtncx6au4zqd@alvherre.pgsql |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2022-Oct-24, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On the contrary, it seems to me that putting the assertion within the
> if() block makes the assertion weaker, because we would never check
> for an incorrect state after do_pg_abort_backup() is registered (aka
> any pg_backup_start() call) when not entering in this if() block.
Reading it again, I agree with your conclusion, so I'll push as you
proposed with some extra tests, after they complete running.
--
Álvaro Herrera PostgreSQL Developer — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
"La verdad no siempre es bonita, pero el hambre de ella sí"
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2022-10-24 09:54:28 | pg_dump: Refactor code that constructs ALTER ... OWNER TO commands |
| Previous Message | Richard Guo | 2022-10-24 09:32:35 | Re: Question about savepoint level? |