| From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>, Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Race condition in recovery? |
| Date: | 2021-06-12 17:44:44 |
| Message-ID: | 2196ba32-0ec9-6b61-6134-e0e6d33e180f@dunslane.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 6/12/21 1:07 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
>> On 6/12/21 10:20 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> I wonder whether that is a workaround for the poll_query_until bug
>>> I proposed to fix at [1].
>> No, it's because I found it annoying and confusing that there was an
>> invisible result when last_archived_wal is null.
> OK. But it makes me itch a bit that this one wait-for-wal-to-be-
> processed query looks different from all the other ones.
>
>
I'm happy to bring the other two queries that look like this into line
with this one if you like.
cheers
andrew
--
Andrew Dunstan
EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2021-06-12 17:51:00 | Re: Failure in subscription test 004_sync.pl |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2021-06-12 17:30:28 | Re: pg_filenode_relation(0,0) elog |