| From: | Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, Fujii Masao <fujii(at)postgresql(dot)org>, 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 22:35:55 |
| Message-ID: | 20230201223555.GA3721373@nathanxps13 |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Feb 01, 2023 at 09:58:06AM -0800, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 01, 2023 at 08:58:01AM -0800, Andres Freund wrote:
>> On 2023-02-01 10:12:26 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> 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.
>>
>> We could push the functions setting in_restore_command down into
>> ExecuteRecoveryCommand(). But I don't think that'd end up necessarily
>> being right either - we'd now use the mechanism in places we previously
>> didn't (cleanup/end commands).
>
> Right, we'd only want to set it for restore_command. I think that's
> doable.
Here is a first draft for the proposed stopgap fix. If we want to proceed
with this, I can provide patches for the back branches.
--
Nathan Bossart
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| v1-0001-stopgap-fix-for-restore_command.patch | text/x-diff | 2.8 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2023-02-01 22:36:47 | Re: pg_dump versus hash partitioning |
| Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2023-02-01 22:33:31 | Re: pg_dump versus hash partitioning |