| From: | "Jelte Fennema-Nio" <postgres(at)jeltef(dot)nl> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Jacob Champion" <jacob(dot)champion(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Tatsuo Ishii" <ishii(at)postgresql(dot)org>, <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "Dave Cramer" <davecramer(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: BackendKeyData is mandatory? |
| Date: | 2025-07-03 06:13:10 |
| Message-ID: | DB275HOGDYPT.1P6GH2INNTMCP@jeltef.nl |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu Jul 3, 2025 at 2:03 AM CEST, Jacob Champion wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 2, 2025 at 3:18 PM Jelte Fennema-Nio <postgres(at)jeltef(dot)nl> wrote:
> I will hold off on detailed review until Heikki gives an opinion on
> the design (or we get closer to the end of the month), to avoid making
> busy work for you -- but I will say that I think you need to prove
> that the new `failure:` case in getBackendKeyData() is safe, because I
> don't think any of the other failure modes behave that way inside
> pqParseInput3().
I changed it slightly now to align with the handleSyncLoss function its
implementation.
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| v3-0001-libpq-Complain-about-missing-BackendKeyData-later.patch | text/x-patch | 6.1 KB |
| v3-0002-libpq-Be-strict-about-accept-cancel-key-lengths.patch | text/x-patch | 3.8 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2025-07-03 06:14:14 | Re: Add pg_get_injection_points() for information of injection points |
| Previous Message | Jelte Fennema-Nio | 2025-07-03 05:50:05 | Re: PG18 protocol version |