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

On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 9:51 AM, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 6:46 AM, Michael Paquier
> <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> 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.
>
> +1 from me.

Committed. Thanks!

Regards,

--
Fujii Masao