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: 2019-06-12T18:52:55Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> On 2019-Apr-29, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Ashwin Agrawal <aagrawal@pivotal.io> writes:
>>> Have we decided if this will be applied to back branches?

>> My feeling about it is "maybe eventually, but most definitely not
>> the week before a set of minor releases".  Some positive experience
>> with Greenplum would help increase confidence in the patch, for sure.

> I looked at the buildfarm failures for the recoveryCheck stage.  It
> looks like there is only one failure for branch master after this
> commit, which was chipmunk saying:
> ...
> AFAICS this is wholly unrelated to the problem at hand.

Yeah, that seems unrelated.

> No other animal failed recoveryCheck test; before the commit, the
> failure was not terribly frequent, but rarely would 10 days go by
> without it failing.  So I suggest that the bug has indeed been fixed.

I feel pretty good about it too.

> Maybe now's a good time to get it back-patched?

Should we do that now, or wait till after next week's releases?

			regards, tom lane



Commits

  1. In walreceiver, don't try to do ereport() in a signal handler.