Re: Unexpected behavior after OOM errors

From: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
To: Matthias van de Meent <boekewurm+postgres(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, Alexander Lakhin <exclusion(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Unexpected behavior after OOM errors
Date: 2026-06-20 06:03:20
Message-ID: ajYtKGiz6qjbu3vv@paquier.xyz
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Jun 19, 2026 at 09:22:28AM +0200, Matthias van de Meent wrote:
> Because it fixes an assertion, I'd vote for backpatching; but because
> the case is handled safely without assertions I also wouldn't be upset
> if it wasn't backpatched.

With some tweaks to the comments, applied this one on HEAD, without a
backpatch.
--
Michael

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Xuneng Zhou 2026-06-20 06:41:35 Re: Fix race in ReplicationSlotRelease for ephemeral slots
Previous Message Julien Riou 2026-06-20 05:46:23 Re: PROXY protocol support