From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
---|---|
To: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com> |
Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Backup command and functions can cause assertion failure and segmentation fault |
Date: | 2022-07-16 02:36:03 |
Message-ID: | YtIkE12Ur3zjG91y@paquier.xyz |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 04:46:32PM +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
> On 2022/07/14 17:00, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> and it is possible to rely on
>> pg_stat_activity.wait_event to be BaseBackupThrottle, which would make
>
> ISTM that you can also use pg_stat_progress_basebackup.phase.
Indeed, as of "streaming database files". That should work.
> Thanks for the patch! But I'm still not sure if it's worth adding
> only this test for the corner case while we don't have basic tests
> for BASE_BACKUP, pg_backup_start and pg_backup_stop.
>
> BTW, if we decide to add that test, are you planning to back-patch it?
I was thinking about doing that only on HEAD. One thing interesting
about this patch is that it can also be used as a point of reference
for other future things.
> This sounds fine to me, too. On the other hand, it's also fine for
> me to push the changes separately so that we can easily identify
> each change later. So I separated the patch into two ones.
>
> Since one of them failed to be applied to v14 or before cleanly, I
> also created the patch for those back branches. So I attached three
> patches.
Fine by me.
--
Michael
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Justin Pryzby | 2022-07-16 02:37:14 | Re: Commitfest Update |
Previous Message | Justin Pryzby | 2022-07-16 02:13:12 | Re: Commitfest Update |