| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, tushar <tushar(dot)ahuja(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Error while creating subscription when server is running in single user mode |
| Date: | 2017-06-03 03:06:52 |
| Message-ID: | 2647a7b0-e1bb-ce9c-8467-6873d49c8a2b@2ndquadrant.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 6/2/17 15:41, Tom Lane wrote:
> It's certainly plausible that we could have the latch code just ignore
> WL_POSTMASTER_DEATH if not IsUnderPostmaster. I think that the original
> reasoning for not doing that was that the calling code should know which
> environment it's in, and not pass an unimplementable wait-exit reason;
> so silently ignoring the bit could mask a bug. Perhaps that argument is
> no longer attractive. Alternatively, we could fix the relevant call sites
> to do "(IsUnderPostmaster ? WL_POSTMASTER_DEATH : 0)", and keep the strict
> behavior for the majority of call sites.
There are a lot of those call sites. (And a lot of duplicate code for
what to do if postmaster death actually happens.) I doubt we want to
check them all.
The attached patch fixes the reported issue for me.
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| 0001-Ignore-WL_POSTMASTER_DEATH-latch-event-in-single-use.patch | text/plain | 1.0 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2017-06-03 03:10:08 | Re: Error while creating subscription when server is running in single user mode |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2017-06-03 02:53:00 | Re: PostgreSQL 10 changes in exclusion constraints - did something change? CASE WHEN behavior oddity |