| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Deficient error handling in pg_dump and pg_basebackup |
| Date: | 2021-11-17 19:19:20 |
| Message-ID: | 2736016.1637176760@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> writes:
> On Tue, Nov 16, 2021 at 10:26:11PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> However, that's largely orthogonal to any of the things my proposed
>> patches are trying to fix. If you want to review the patches without
>> considering the fsync-error-handling problem, that'd be great.
> I have looked at them upthread, FWIW:
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/YYtSj5vlWp5faVXz@paquier.xyz
> Your proposals still look rather sane to me, after a second look.
Pushed then; thanks for reviewing that. We can consider the fsync
error question at leisure.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2021-11-17 19:37:36 | Re: Should we improve "PID XXXX is not a PostgreSQL server process" warning for pg_terminate_backend(<<postmaster_pid>>)? |
| Previous Message | Justin Pryzby | 2021-11-17 19:13:02 | Re: Should we improve "PID XXXX is not a PostgreSQL server process" warning for pg_terminate_backend(<<postmaster_pid>>)? |