Horton

Re: Unexpected behavior after OOM errors

Alexander Law <exclusion@gmail.com>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Alexander Lakhin <exclusion@gmail.com>
To: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>, Matthias van de Meent <boekewurm+postgres@gmail.com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2026-06-20T08:00:01Z
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

Commits

  1. Make type cache initialization more resilient on re-entry after OOM

  2. Make StandbyAcquireAccessExclusiveLock() more resilent with OOMs

  3. Make GetSnapshotData() more resilient on out-of-memory errors