From: | Andrey Borodin <x4mmm(at)yandex-team(dot)ru> |
---|---|
To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
Cc: | Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Backpatching injection point core facilities to REL_17_STABLE |
Date: | 2025-08-07 09:53:12 |
Message-ID: | DD5D9251-E824-4CA9-8B82-2B033123CCC7@yandex-team.ru |
Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> On 28 Jun 2025, at 05:38, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jun 27, 2025 at 02:45:58PM +0500, Andrey Borodin wrote:
>> I'm +1 on having full-fledged injection points in back branches
>> where possible. Right now I'm debugging a PG-17(probably) problem
>> where injection preloading would be handy (though functionality is
>> available via hacks, just a little more work).
>>
>> But are you going to backpatch all new features of injection points
>> in future? It's potentially x6 more work.
>
> That may be nice, but I'd be interested in seeing how things evolve
> across v17 first before taking a decision for older branches.
FWIW both multixact problem [0] and my recent corruption finding [1] would benefit a lot from having ability to do injection points down to PG 12.
And while [0] is a bug that is detectable with several pgbenches, I have a good sounding proof that [1] can't happen at all and no way to detect it without waiting injection point (or similar hand-hacked functionality).
Best regards, Andrey Borodin.
[0] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/172e5723-d65f-4eec-b512-14beacb326ce@yandex.ru
[1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/B3C69B86-7F82-4111-B97F-0005497BB745%40yandex-team.ru
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | John Naylor | 2025-08-07 10:30:26 | Re: cpluspluscheck vs ICU again |
Previous Message | Dilip Kumar | 2025-08-07 09:38:20 | Re: Proposal: Conflict log history table for Logical Replication |