| From: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Is RecoveryConflictInterrupt() entirely safe in a signal handler? |
| Date: | 2023-08-05 01:39:24 |
| Message-ID: | CA+hUKGJDcyW8Hbq3UyG-5-5Y7WqqOTjrXbFTMxxmhiofFraE-Q@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Here is a rebase over 26669757, which introduced
PROCSIG_RECOVERY_CONFLICT_LOGICALSLOT.
I got a bit confused about why this new conflict reason didn't follow
the usual ERROR->FATAL promotion rules and pinged Andres who provided:
"Logical decoding slots are only acquired while performing logical
decoding. During logical decoding no user controlled code is run.
During [sub]transaction abort, the slot is released. Therefore user
controlled code cannot intercept an error before the replication slot
is released." That's included in a comment in the attached to explain
the special treatment.
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| v7-0001-Fix-recovery-conflict-SIGUSR1-handling.patch | text/x-patch | 20.0 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Thomas Munro | 2023-08-05 01:42:33 | Re: A failure in 031_recovery_conflict.pl on Debian/s390x |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2023-08-05 01:25:16 | Re: Release 17 of the PostgreSQL Buildfarm Client |