| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, davec(at)postgresintl(dot)com, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: orangutan seizes up during isolation-check |
| Date: | 2014-12-31 05:32:37 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoYQ6pPNDokUz9BGeNCms9kupFx=RuLjoaSwbxTyLz6V8w@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, Dec 28, 2014 at 4:58 PM, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> wrote:
> I wondered whether to downgrade FATAL to LOG in back branches. Introducing a
> new reason to block startup is disruptive for a minor release, but having the
> postmaster deadlock at an unpredictable later time is even more disruptive. I
> am inclined to halt startup that way in all branches.
Jeepers. I'd rather not do that. From your report, this problem has
been around for years. Yet, as far as I know, it's bothering very few
real users, some of whom might be far more bothered by the postmaster
suddenly failing to start. I'm fine with a FATAL in master, but I'd
vote against doing anything that might prevent startup in the
back-branches without more compelling justification.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Guillaume Lelarge | 2014-12-31 07:44:14 | Re: BUG: *FF WALs under 9.2 (WAS: .ready files appearing on slaves) |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2014-12-31 05:20:24 | Re: Using 128-bit integers for sum, avg and statistics aggregates |