|From:||Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>|
|To:||Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>|
|Cc:||Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, Fujii Masao <fujii(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>|
|Subject:||Re: Weird failure with latches in curculio on v15|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email|
On Wed, Feb 01, 2023 at 09:58:06AM -0800, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 01, 2023 at 08:58:01AM -0800, Andres Freund wrote:
>> On 2023-02-01 10:12:26 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> The fundamental issue is that we have no good way to break out
>>> of system(), and I think the original idea was that
>>> in_restore_command would be set *only* for the duration of the
>>> system() call. That's clearly been lost sight of completely,
>>> but maybe as a stopgap we could try to get back to that.
>> We could push the functions setting in_restore_command down into
>> ExecuteRecoveryCommand(). But I don't think that'd end up necessarily
>> being right either - we'd now use the mechanism in places we previously
>> didn't (cleanup/end commands).
> Right, we'd only want to set it for restore_command. I think that's
Here is a first draft for the proposed stopgap fix. If we want to proceed
with this, I can provide patches for the back branches.
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
|Next Message||Robert Haas||2023-02-01 22:36:47||Re: pg_dump versus hash partitioning|
|Previous Message||Peter Geoghegan||2023-02-01 22:33:31||Re: pg_dump versus hash partitioning|