From: | Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com |
Cc: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: tablesync patch broke the assumption that logical rep depends on? |
Date: | 2017-04-13 04:56:05 |
Message-ID: | 20170413045605.GD2870454@tornado.leadboat.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 02:28:44AM +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
> src/backend/replication/logical/launcher.c
> * Worker started and attached to our shmem. This check is safe
> * because only launcher ever starts the workers, so nobody can steal
> * the worker slot.
>
> The tablesync patch enabled even worker to start another worker.
> So the above assumption is not valid for now.
>
> This issue seems to cause the corner case where the launcher picks up
> the same worker slot that previously-started worker has already picked
> up to start another worker.
[Action required within three days. This is a generic notification.]
The above-described topic is currently a PostgreSQL 10 open item. Peter,
since you committed the patch believed to have created it, you own this open
item. If some other commit is more relevant or if this does not belong as a
v10 open item, please let us know. Otherwise, please observe the policy on
open item ownership[1] and send a status update within three calendar days of
this message. Include a date for your subsequent status update. Testers may
discover new open items at any time, and I want to plan to get them all fixed
well in advance of shipping v10. Consequently, I will appreciate your efforts
toward speedy resolution. Thanks.
[1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20170404140717.GA2675809%40tornado.leadboat.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Noah Misch | 2017-04-13 04:58:12 | Re: snapbuild woes |
Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2017-04-13 04:52:40 | Re: WAL logging problem in 9.4.3? |