| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: potential stuck lock in SaveSlotToPath() |
| Date: | 2020-03-19 15:38:28 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmobPKGJs83ss-QumHQNNfkPMSORKz8ZVHaNDkdAb=-qedw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Mar 18, 2020 at 4:25 PM Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> I don't see a valid reason for that though - if anything it's dangerous,
> because we're not persistently saving the slot. It should fail the
> checkpoint imo. Robert, do you have an idea?
Well, the comment atop SaveSlotToPath says:
* This needn't actually be part of a checkpoint, but it's a convenient
* location.
And I agree with that.
Incidentally, the wait-event handling in SaveSlotToPath() doesn't look
right for the early-exit cases either.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2020-03-19 15:44:05 | Re: Make MemoryContextMemAllocated() more precise |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2020-03-19 15:35:34 | Re: Internal key management system |