From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andrey Borodin <x4mmm(at)yandex-team(dot)ru>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Logical WAL sender unresponsive during decoding commit |
Date: | 2022-10-20 13:47:38 |
Message-ID: | CA+TgmoZ_o_1C3VMOiHe0+HdsXpEPhkcTdLw-Bsv=-uxV9P=vPA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Oct 20, 2022 at 1:37 AM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 20, 2022 at 5:17 AM Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > > Pushed.
> >
> > I think this was a good change, but there's at least one other problem
> > here: within ReorderBufferRestoreChanges, the while (restored <
> > max_changes_in_memory && *segno <= last_segno) doesn't seem to contain
> > a CFI. Note that this can loop either by repeatedly failing to open a
> > file, or by repeatedly reading from a file and passing the data read
> > to ReorderBufferRestoreChange. So I think there should just be a CFI
> > at the top of this loop to make sure both cases are covered.
>
> Agreed. The failures due to file operations can make this loop
> unpredictable in terms of time, so it is a good idea to have CFI at
> the top of this loop.
>
> I can take care of this unless there are any objections or you want to
> do it. We have backpatched the previous similar change, so I think we
> should backpatch this as well. What do you think?
Please go ahead. +1 for back-patching.
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Japin Li | 2022-10-20 13:57:34 | Re: date_part/extract parse curiosity |
Previous Message | Erik Rijkers | 2022-10-20 12:45:50 | date_part/extract parse curiosity |