| From: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
| Cc: | Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, hlinnaka <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Problem while setting the fpw with SIGHUP |
| Date: | 2018-09-27 14:08:31 |
| Message-ID: | CAA4eK1+_=2HUWQkhG1UGcPva08GQ6MoF5PGWwrdOnY1aSEKuhw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 6:22 PM Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 04:19:02PM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > I think this is mostly fine, but it seems "if the instance just got
> > out of recovery" doesn't fit well because it can happen anytime after
> > recovery, this code gets called from checkpointer. I think we can
> > slightly tweak it as below:
> > "Perform this outside critical section so that the WAL insert
> > initialization done by RecoveryInProgress() doesn't trigger an
> > assertion failure."
> >
> > What do you say?
>
> Fine for me.
>
Okay, I am planning to commit the attached patch tomorrow unless you
or anybody else has any objections to it.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| fix_fpwupdate.2.patch | application/octet-stream | 2.2 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2018-09-27 14:17:33 | Re: Let's stop with the retail rebuilds of src/port/ files already |
| Previous Message | Jesper Pedersen | 2018-09-27 14:03:51 | Re: pread() and pwrite() |