Re: pgsql: Mark pg_start_backup and pg_stop_backup as parallel-restricted.

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net>
Cc: Robert Haas <rhaas(at)postgresql(dot)org>, pgsql-committers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: pgsql: Mark pg_start_backup and pg_stop_backup as parallel-restricted.
Date: 2017-03-06 20:23:28
Message-ID: 25505.1488831808@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-committers

David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net> writes:
> On 3/6/17 12:48 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> This issue also exists in 9.6, but we obviously can't do anything
>> about 9.6 clusters that already exist. Possibly this could be
>> back-patched so that future 9.6 clusters would come out OK, or
>> possibly we should back-patch some other fix, but that would need more
>> discussion.

> I think it would be worth back-patching the catalog fix for future 9.6
> clusters as a start.

Yes, I think it's rather silly not to do so. We have made comparable
backpatched fixes multiple times in the past. What is worth discussing is
whether there are *additional* things we ought to do in 9.6 to prevent
misbehavior in installations initdb'd pre-9.6.3.

If there's a cheap way of testing "AmInParallelWorker", I'd be in favor of
adding a quick-n-dirty test and ereport(ERROR) to these functions in the
9.6 branch, so that at least you get a clean error and not some weird
misbehavior. Not sure if there's anything more we can do than that.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-committers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Stephen Frost 2017-03-06 20:28:15 Re: pgsql: Mark pg_start_backup and pg_stop_backup as parallel-restricted.
Previous Message David Steele 2017-03-06 19:41:58 Re: pgsql: Mark pg_start_backup and pg_stop_backup as parallel-restricted.