Re: [HACKERS] Assertion failure when the non-exclusive pg_stop_backup aborted.

From: Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Assertion failure when the non-exclusive pg_stop_backup aborted.
Date: 2017-12-14 21:46:10
Message-ID: CAB7nPqQvhqg-igNp-t7ODnb5R+ZEjUXrjVMHTO8s_TAwcMikBg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 3:52 AM, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 2:16 PM, Michael Paquier
> <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 2:03 PM, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>> On Sat, Dec 9, 2017 at 2:24 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>>> On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 4:13 AM, Michael Paquier
>>>> <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>>>> I would just write "To
>>>>> avoid calling CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS which can happen when releasing a
>>>>> LWLock" and be done with it. There is no point to list a full function
>>>>> dependency list, which could change in the future with static routines
>>>>> of lwlock.c.
>>>
>>> Agreed. Updated the comment.
>>
>> Robert actually liked adding the complete routine list. Let's see what
>> Fujii-san thinks at the end, there is still some time until the next
>> round of minor releases.
>
> What I think is the patch I attached. Thought?

That's OK for me. Thanks.
--
Michael

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andres Freund 2017-12-14 22:00:17 Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Fix freezing of a dead HOT-updated tuple
Previous Message Alvaro Herrera 2017-12-14 21:15:53 Re: [HACKERS] Surjective functional indexes