| From: | Xuneng Zhou <xunengzhou(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
| Cc: | Alexander Lakhin <exclusion(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-bugs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: BUG #18158: Assert in pgstat_report_stat() fails when a backend shutting down with stats pending |
| Date: | 2026-05-14 07:19:34 |
| Message-ID: | CABPTF7VgzdBP_ZPKf2eZ79ry0fVKzcgCkB5gy60HGXCy0EQb0w@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
On Wed, May 13, 2026 at 2:55 PM Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote:
>
> On Wed, May 13, 2026 at 08:46:25AM +0800, Xuneng Zhou wrote:
> > Thanks for reporting this. It appears like backpatching an equivalent
> > of 87a6690cc69 to REL_17/REL_16 would resolve this issue.
>
> FWIW, I fear such a change in the stable branches based on its
> invasiveness, particularly because the area of the code dealing with
> shutdown sequences has been reworked a lot lately as far as I recall.
>
> I am seriously wondering if we should just let it go and remove the
> assertion on v15~v17. It's not perfect, of course, but I value much
> more this assertion in terms of any future work that can be done with
> pgstats, not in terms of what we could detect for bug fixes.
I agree that applying the change wholesale could be too invasive. If
we decide not to address the ordering issue, removing this assertion
seems reasonable, since the non-assert path does not actually provide
the required guarantee.
--
Regards,
Xuneng Zhou
HighGo Software Co., Ltd.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | PG Bug reporting form | 2026-05-14 09:16:38 | BUG #19477: pg_rewind does not rewind a diverging timeline |
| Previous Message | Marcelo Lauxen | 2026-05-13 14:25:47 | Re: pg_get_indexdef() output not idempotent for partial indexes with ALL(ARRAY[…])::text[] |