| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: potential stuck lock in SaveSlotToPath() |
| Date: | 2020-03-18 20:25:30 |
| Message-ID: | 20200318202530.6ectap6floo7d27w@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On 2020-03-18 16:54:19 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On 2020-Mar-18, Andres Freund wrote:
> > On 2020-03-18 16:46:23 +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > > When SaveSlotToPath() is called with elevel=LOG, the early exits don't
> > > release the slot's io_in_progress_lock. Fix attached.
> >
> > I'm a bit confused as to why we we ever call it with elevel = LOG
> > (i.e. why we have the elevel parameter at all). That seems to have been
> > there from the start, so it's either me or Robert that's to blame. But I
> > can't immediately see a reason for it?
>
> I guess you didn't want failure to save a slot be a reason to abort a
> checkpoint.
I don't see a valid reason for that though - if anything it's dangerous,
because we're not persistently saving the slot. It should fail the
checkpoint imo. Robert, do you have an idea?
Greetings,
Andres Freund
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2020-03-18 20:29:55 | Re: Collation versioning |
| Previous Message | Thomas Munro | 2020-03-18 20:13:28 | Re: potential stuck lock in SaveSlotToPath() |