Re: Race conditions with checkpointer and shutdown
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: Ashwin Agrawal <aagrawal@pivotal.io>,
Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>,
Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>,
Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Date: 2019-06-12T20:26:23Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> writes: > On 2019-Jun-12, Tom Lane wrote: >> Should we do that now, or wait till after next week's releases? > IMO this has been hammered enough in master, and we still have a few > days in the back-branches for buildfarm, that it's okay to do it now. Poking at that, I find that a1a789eb5 back-patches reasonably painlessly into v11 and v10, but trying to bring it back to 9.6 encounters a pile of merge failures. Also, looking at the git logs shows that we did a hell of a lot of subtle work on that code (libpqwalreceiver.c in particular) during the v10 cycle. So I've got no confidence that successful buildfarm/beta1 testing of the HEAD patch means much of anything for putting it into pre-v10 branches. Given that we've seen few if any field reports of this issue, my inclination is to back-patch as far as v10, but not take the risk and effort involved in going further. regards, tom lane
Commits
-
In walreceiver, don't try to do ereport() in a signal handler.
- ac8f2e1ef34f 10.9 landed
- 9346d396fd4a 11.4 landed
- a1a789eb5ac8 12.0 landed