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
-
In walreceiver, don't try to do ereport() in a signal handler.
- ac8f2e1ef34f 10.9 landed
- 9346d396fd4a 11.4 landed
- a1a789eb5ac8 12.0 landed