| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, ohp(at)pyrenet(dot)fr, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Re: Re: PITR question |
| Date: | 2004-10-06 22:09:32 |
| Message-ID: | 654.1097100572@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
<simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
>> ohp(at)pyrenet(dot)fr wrote:
>>> ... you end up with a core dump (signal 6) and an error saying that you
>>> can't stop before end of backup.
>>
>> Was this corrected? I don't see any followups to it in the archives.
>>
> Not by me, though I was definitely working on crash recovery then. ;-)
> Olivier is right in the explanation of this, but it doesn't seem that a
> core dump is the appropriate response.
The error is intentional. The reason it's converted to a core dump is
simply that the whole of recovery is run as a critical section, and so
any fatal error is promoted to PANIC.
We could think about a different rule about whether to force a core dump
in these circumstances, but I can't say that I am very excited about it.
I'd rather have the dump and not need it than vice versa.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Oliver Jowett | 2004-10-06 22:36:47 | Re: Two-phase commit |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2004-10-06 22:05:51 | pgindent complaint of the day |