From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, tushar <tushar(dot)ahuja(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Error while creating subscription when server is running in single user mode |
Date: | 2017-06-02 19:41:53 |
Message-ID: | 1179.1496432513@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> My point is that we shouldn't be putting checks into DDL commands about
> single-user mode if the actual cause of the issue is in a lower-level
> system. Not all uses of a particular DDL command necessary use a latch,
> for example. Also, there could be other things that hit a latch that
> are reachable in single-user mode that we haven't found yet.
> So I think the check should either go somewhere in the latch code, or
> possibly in the libpqwalreceiver code. Or we make the latch code work
> so that the check-for-postmaster-death code becomes a noop in
> single-user mode. Suggestions?
It's certainly plausible that we could have the latch code just ignore
WL_POSTMASTER_DEATH if not IsUnderPostmaster. I think that the original
reasoning for not doing that was that the calling code should know which
environment it's in, and not pass an unimplementable wait-exit reason;
so silently ignoring the bit could mask a bug. Perhaps that argument is
no longer attractive. Alternatively, we could fix the relevant call sites
to do "(IsUnderPostmaster ? WL_POSTMASTER_DEATH : 0)", and keep the strict
behavior for the majority of call sites.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | J Chapman Flack | 2017-06-02 19:47:12 | Re: TAP: allow overriding PostgresNode in get_new_node |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2017-06-02 19:33:21 | Re: statement_timeout is not working as expected with postgres_fdw |