Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Hot Standby conflict resolution handling

From: Pavan Deolasee <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Abhijit Menon-Sen <ams(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Hot Standby conflict resolution handling
Date: 2013-01-17 07:49:47
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 12:08 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:

> But having said that ... are we sure this code is not actually broken?

I'm not.

> ISTM that if we dare not interrupt for fear of confusing OpenSSL, we
> cannot safely attempt to send an error message to the client either;
> but ereport(FATAL) will try exactly that.

I thought since FATAL will force the backend to exit, we don't care much
about corrupted OpenSSL state. I even thought that's why we raise ERROR to
FATAL so that the backend can start in a clean state. But clearly I'm
missing a point here because you don't think that way.


Pavan Deolasee

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Simon RiggsDate: 2013-01-17 08:41:37
Subject: Re: Removing PD_ALL_VISIBLE
Previous:From: Pavan DeolaseeDate: 2013-01-17 07:19:08
Subject: Re: CF3+4 (was Re: Parallel query execution)

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group