From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
Cc: | Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>, hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Race conditions in 019_replslot_limit.pl |
Date: | 2022-02-18 23:15:21 |
Message-ID: | 4165799.1645226121@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> On 2022-02-17 21:55:21 -0800, Andres Freund wrote:
>> Isn't it pretty bonkers that we allow error processing to get stuck behind
>> network traffic, *before* we have have released resources (locks etc)?
It's more or less intentional, per elog.c:
/*
* This flush is normally not necessary, since postgres.c will flush out
* waiting data when control returns to the main loop. But it seems best
* to leave it here, so that the client has some clue what happened if the
* backend dies before getting back to the main loop ... error/notice
* messages should not be a performance-critical path anyway, so an extra
* flush won't hurt much ...
*/
pq_flush();
Perhaps it'd be sensible to do this only in debugging (ie Assert)
builds?
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andres Freund | 2022-02-18 23:19:40 | Re: Time to drop plpython2? |
Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2022-02-18 23:14:15 | Re: Race conditions in 019_replslot_limit.pl |