| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, Fujii Masao <fujii(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Weird failure with latches in curculio on v15 |
| Date: | 2023-02-01 15:12:26 |
| Message-ID: | 1369666.1675264346@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> On 2023-02-01 16:21:16 +1300, Thomas Munro wrote:
>> It's always in proc_exit() in StartupProcShutdownHandler(), a SIGTERM
>> handler which is allowed to call that while in_restore_command is
>> true.
> Ugh, no wonder we're getting crashes. This whole business seems bogus as
> hell.
Indeed :-(
> I don't see a choice but to revert the recent changes. They need a
> fairly large rewrite.
9a740f81e clearly made things a lot worse, but it wasn't great
before. Can we see a way forward to removing the problem entirely?
The fundamental issue is that we have no good way to break out
of system(), and I think the original idea was that
in_restore_command would be set *only* for the duration of the
system() call. That's clearly been lost sight of completely,
but maybe as a stopgap we could try to get back to that.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Matthias van de Meent | 2023-02-01 15:21:35 | Re: Progress report of CREATE INDEX for nested partitioned tables |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2023-02-01 14:58:49 | Re: Support for dumping extended statistics |