| From: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Masahiko Sawada <masahiko(dot)sawada(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Some problems of recovery conflict wait events |
| Date: | 2020-03-04 04:48:12 |
| Message-ID: | 9225d7b8-a385-6607-d00b-be1093fbaf0e@oss.nttdata.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2020/03/04 13:27, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 04, 2020 at 01:13:19PM +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>> Yeah, so 0001 patch sets existing wait events to recovery conflict
>> resolution. For instance, it sets (PG_WAIT_LOCK | LOCKTAG_TRANSACTION)
>> to the recovery conflict on a snapshot. 0003 patch improves these wait
>> events by adding the new type of wait event such as
>> WAIT_EVENT_RECOVERY_CONFLICT_SNAPSHOT. Therefore 0001 (and 0002) patch
>> is the fix for existing versions and 0003 patch is an improvement for
>> only PG13. Did you mean even 0001 patch doesn't fit for back-patching?
Yes, it looks like a improvement rather than bug fix.
> I got my eyes on this patch set. The full patch set is in my opinion
> just a set of improvements, and not bug fixes, so I would refrain from
> back-backpatching.
I think that the issue (i.e., "waiting" is reported twice needlessly
in PS display) that 0002 patch tries to fix is a bug. So it should be
fixed even in the back branches.
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
NTT DATA CORPORATION
Advanced Platform Technology Group
Research and Development Headquarters
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Mike Palmiotto | 2020-03-04 04:56:26 | Re: Auxiliary Processes and MyAuxProc |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2020-03-04 04:41:05 | Re: Cast to uint16 in pg_checksum_page() |