| 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 05:48:02 |
| Message-ID: | CAA4eK1Kbjjwq3BCfVuNcr7oph4b0kvf7YyEwTF+6v_KytrBgaA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 10:34 AM Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 10:03:59AM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > I think, in this case, it might be advisable to just fix the problem
> > (a) which is what has been reported originally in the thread and
> > AFAICS, the fix for that is clear as compared to the problem (b). If
> > you agree, then we can discuss what is the best fix for the first
> > problem (a).
>
> Okay, thanks for the input. The fix for (a) would be in my opinion to
> just move the call to RecoveryInProgress() out of the critical section,
> then save the result into a variable, and use the variable within the
> critical section to avoid the potential palloc() problems. What do you
> think?
>
Your proposed solution makes sense to me. IIUC, this is quite similar
to what Dilip has also proposed [1].
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Gilles Darold | 2018-09-27 06:42:18 | Ora2Pg v19.1 has been released |
| Previous Message | Madeleine Thompson | 2018-09-27 05:46:25 | Re: BUG #15307: Low numerical precision of (Co-) Variance |