Re: Backup command and functions can cause assertion failure and segmentation fault

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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