Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: elog(FATAL) vs shared memory

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Martin Pitt <martin(dot)pitt(at)ubuntu(dot)com>, Mark Shuttleworth <mark(at)ubuntu(dot)com>
Subject: Re: elog(FATAL) vs shared memory
Date: 2007-04-27 02:38:16
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
> Where are we on this?

Still trying to think of a less messy solution...

>> What it essentially says is that trying to clean up shared-memory
>> state in a PG_TRY block is unsafe: you can't be certain you'll
>> get to do it.

			regards, tom lane

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2007-04-27 02:43:08
Subject: Re: elog(FATAL) vs shared memory
Previous:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2007-04-27 02:35:40
Subject: Re: [PATCH] A crash and subsequent recovery of the master can cause the slave to get out-of-sync

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group