| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Xuneng Zhou <xunengzhou(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, ryanzxg(at)gmail(dot)com, pgsql-bugs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, Euler Taveira <euler(at)eulerto(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: BUG #19093: Behavioral change in walreceiver termination between PostgreSQL 14.17 and 14.18 |
| Date: | 2025-11-04 04:52:09 |
| Message-ID: | aQmGeVLYl51y1m_0@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
On Sat, Nov 01, 2025 at 08:44:55AM +0800, Xuneng Zhou wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 1, 2025 at 8:17 AM Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote:
>> Thanks, that looks sensible. I'll revisit what you have at the
>> beginning of next week (local Tuesday) with a backpatch down to v13 in
>> mind. If others have comments and/or objections, please feel free to
>> chime in.
>
> It's an oversight. Thanks for catching it.
Phew, done. While looking at the whole thing, I was wondering if we
should strengthen a little bit what's expected of the context for some
of the callers of the WAL routines, like XLogShutdownWalRcv(), and
finished with the bonus patch attached. What do you think?
--
Michael
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| 0001-Add-assertions-checking-after-startup-process.patch | text/x-diff | 1.9 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Richard Guo | 2025-11-04 07:44:42 | Re: BUG #19102: Assertion failure in generate_orderedappend_paths with aggregate pushdown |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2025-11-03 20:57:23 | Re: BUG #19042: Option --help not recognized at the end of command line in pg_restore |