| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Gurjeet Singh <gurjeet(at)singh(dot)im>, Postgres Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: pg_reload_conf() synchronously |
| Date: | 2022-11-05 04:51:08 |
| Message-ID: | 20221105045108.wbz4eaaifgxosmlq@awork3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On 2022-11-04 23:35:21 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> > Worth noting that this doesn't necessarily suffice to avoid race conditions in
> > tests, if the test depends on *other* backends having seen the configuration
> > changes.
>
> True, but do we have any such cases?
I know I hit it twice and gave up on the tests.
> > It might be worth to use the global barrier mechanism to count which backends
> > have reloaded configuration and to provide a function / option to pg_sleep
> > that waits for that.
>
> That ... seems like a lot of mechanism. And it could easily result
> in undetected deadlocks, if any other session is blocked on you.
> I seriously doubt that we should go there.
Yea, it's not great. Probably ok enough for a test, but ...
Greetings,
Andres Freund
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2022-11-05 05:26:44 | Re: pg_reload_conf() synchronously |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2022-11-05 03:35:21 | Re: pg_reload_conf() synchronously |