From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> |
Cc: | Christoph Moench-Tegeder <cmt(at)burggraben(dot)net>, "Hackers (PostgreSQL)" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: detecting binary backup in progress |
Date: | 2013-06-01 15:31:39 |
Message-ID: | 20130601153139.GC6732@awork2.anarazel.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2013-06-01 08:27:42 -0700, Joe Conway wrote:
> > Uh. Why would you do the lock(file) thingy *after* calling
> > pg_start_backup? You should do lock before calling start backup
> > and remove the lock after calling stop backup. In that case I don't
> > see where the race condition is?
>
> No, the point is I have no control over Proc1. I am trying to prevent
> Proc2 from running concurrently with a binary backup (Proc1). So I
> need to lock out Proc1, or detect it is running and wait for it to finish.
Backups over which you don't have control sound a bit scary ;). I think
at that point you have a race condition no matter what since the backup
could be started between your check and when you call pg_start_backup
anyay. So just calling pg_start_backup and handling the error properly
sounds like the way to go in that case.
Andres
--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andres Freund | 2013-06-01 15:32:59 | Re: pg_dump with postgis extension dumps rules separately |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2013-06-01 15:31:05 | Re: pg_dump with postgis extension dumps rules separately |