Re: Unexpected behavior after OOM errors

From: Alexander Lakhin <exclusion(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Matthias van de Meent <boekewurm+postgres(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Unexpected behavior after OOM errors
Date: 2026-06-20 08:00:01
Message-ID: d802d8a3-41e6-4232-9475-6bc99d8cbd19@gmail.com
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hello Michael and Matthias,

20.06.2026 10:45, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 19, 2026 at 08:12:47PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 19, 2026 at 09:18:03AM +0200, Matthias van de Meent wrote:
>>> Ah, thanks for correcting me. I'm not sure why I had ERROR in mind,
>>> but you're obviously correct. Your patch v2 LGTM.
>> Cool, thanks.
> And done that as well. If we invent a new facility, I'd be curious to
> see how this would apply here or to other parts of the backend. And
> perhaps not only for initialization steps?

Thank you for working on the fixes!

Best regards,
Alexander

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Florents Tselai 2026-06-20 08:34:57 Re: More jsonpath methods: translate, split, join
Previous Message Michael Paquier 2026-06-20 07:49:59 Re: [PATCH] Fix two incorrect code comments