From: | "Tsunakawa, Takayuki" <tsunakawa(dot)takay(at)jp(dot)fujitsu(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | 'Robert Haas' <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [bug fix] Cascading standby cannot catch up and get stuck emitting the same message repeatedly |
Date: | 2016-11-15 03:25:22 |
Message-ID: | 0A3221C70F24FB45833433255569204D1F640402@G01JPEXMBYT05 |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
From: pgsql-hackers-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org
> [mailto:pgsql-hackers-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org] On Behalf Of Robert Haas
> Let me try to be more clear. I will not commit this patch if it is not
> properly commented. I doubt that anyone else will, either.
>
> The fact that those code changes already exist in 9.4+ is not a reason to
> back-port them to earlier releases without a proper explanation of why we
> are doing it. Very possibly, we should also improve the comments in newer
> branches so that future authors don't reintroduce whatever bugs were fixed
> by these changes. But whether we do that or not, I am not going to commit
> uncommented patches to complex code in order to fix obscure bugs in
> 3+-year-old branches. I think that is a non-starter.
>
OK, although I'm not perfectly sure what to add as a comment, I added an example scenario as a comment because I thought a concrete situation helps to understand the existing two paragraphs. Is this good?
Regards
Takayuki Tsunakawa
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
cascading_standby_stuck_v2.patch | application/octet-stream | 7.5 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Kyotaro HORIGUCHI | 2016-11-15 03:57:25 | Re: Fix checkpoint skip logic on idle systems by tracking LSN progress |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2016-11-15 02:51:31 | Re: Adding the optional clause 'AS' in CREATE TRIGGER |