| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(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: | 2017-11-16 04:11:17 |
| Message-ID: | CAB7nPqRLxYuu8ZwkRbX14+2DW30qJkBFOMJtMULsDCLtHFM6Kw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 10:57 AM, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Agreed. Attached the updated patch, please review it.
+ /*
+ * Quick exit if session is not keeping around a non-exclusive backup
+ * already started.
+ */
+ if (sessionBackupState != SESSION_BACKUP_NON_EXCLUSIVE)
+ return;
I think that it would be more solid to use SESSION_BACKUP_NONE for the
comparison, and complete the assertion after the quick exit as follows
as this code path should never be taken for an exclusive backup:
+ Assert(XLogCtl->Insert.nonExclusiveBackups > 0 &&
+ sessionBackupState == SESSION_BACKUP_NON_EXCLUSIVE);
And your patch would discard both SESSION_BACKUP_EXCLUSIVE and
SESSION_BACKUP_NONE.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2017-11-16 04:42:36 | Re: [HACKERS] [POC] Faster processing at Gather node |
| Previous Message | David Rowley | 2017-11-16 03:44:02 | Re: [HACKERS] path toward faster partition pruning |