| From: | Xuneng Zhou <xunengzhou(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
| Cc: | Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, ryanzxg(at)gmail(dot)com, pgsql-bugs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, Euler Taveira <euler(at)eulerto(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: BUG #19093: Behavioral change in walreceiver termination between PostgreSQL 14.17 and 14.18 |
| Date: | 2025-11-04 09:01:46 |
| Message-ID: | CABPTF7UgwE4FX6Cukjztr=CtTx6QXPMrv-pTDh=kaWBJUhyLZw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
Hi, Michael!
On Tue, Nov 4, 2025 at 12:52 PM Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Nov 01, 2025 at 08:44:55AM +0800, Xuneng Zhou wrote:
> > On Sat, Nov 1, 2025 at 8:17 AM Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote:
> >> Thanks, that looks sensible. I'll revisit what you have at the
> >> beginning of next week (local Tuesday) with a backpatch down to v13 in
> >> mind. If others have comments and/or objections, please feel free to
> >> chime in.
> >
> > It's an oversight. Thanks for catching it.
>
> Phew, done.
Thanks for pushing the patches!
> While looking at the whole thing, I was wondering if we
> should strengthen a little bit what's expected of the context for some
> of the callers of the WAL routines, like XLogShutdownWalRcv(), and
> finished with the bonus patch attached. What do you think?
The change LGTM — it ensures that the walreceiver’s lifecycle is
orchestrated entirely by the startup process.
Best,
Xuneng
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | xingguo | 2025-11-04 09:31:24 | Re: BUG #19093: Behavioral change in walreceiver termination between PostgreSQL 14.17 and 14.18 |
| Previous Message | Richard Guo | 2025-11-04 07:44:42 | Re: BUG #19102: Assertion failure in generate_orderedappend_paths with aggregate pushdown |