From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Nathan Bossart <nathan(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: core dumps in auto_prewarm, tests succeed |
Date: | 2024-01-23 17:33:25 |
Message-ID: | 202401231733.rnelf7hcjqoz@alvherre.pgsql |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2024-Jan-22, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> Here is a patch.
Looks reasonable.
> This might be a topic for another thread, but I do wonder whether we could
> put a generic pg_controldata check in node->stop that would at least make
> sure that the state is some sort of expected shut-down state. My first
> thought is that it could be a tad expensive, but... maybe it wouldn't be
> too bad.
Does this actually detect a problem if you take out the fix? I think
what's going to happen is that postmaster is going to crash, then do the
recovery cycle, then stop as instructed by the test; so pg_controldata
would report that it was correctly shut down.
If we had a restart-cycle-counter to check maybe we could verify that it
hasn't changed, but I don't think we have that.
--
Álvaro Herrera PostgreSQL Developer — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
"Cada quien es cada cual y baja las escaleras como quiere" (JMSerrat)
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tomas Vondra | 2024-01-23 17:43:25 | Re: index prefetching |
Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2024-01-23 17:30:05 | Re: core dumps in auto_prewarm, tests succeed |