Re: Bug in pg_restore with EventTrigger in parallel mode

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: fabriziomello(at)gmail(dot)com
Cc: vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Pgsql Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Bug in pg_restore with EventTrigger in parallel mode
Date: 2020-03-09 18:59:35
Message-ID: 8445.1583780375@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

=?UTF-8?Q?Fabr=C3=ADzio_de_Royes_Mello?= <fabriziomello(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Mon, Mar 9, 2020 at 12:27 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> Which, TBH, makes me wonder about the validity of the original complaint
>> in this thread. I don't mind delaying ET restore as long as we feasibly
>> can; but if you have an ET that is going to misbehave during restore,
>> you are in for pain, and it's hard to consider that that pain isn't
>> self-inflicted.

> The proposed patch solve the original complain. I was just trying to
> understand completely what you pointed out before and I agree with you.
> Thanks for the clear explanation.

OK, thanks for confirming that this solves your issue in practice.

> About the patch LGTM and IMHO we should back-patch it to all supported
> versions.

Done.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2020-03-09 19:04:23 Re: shared-memory based stats collector
Previous Message Andres Freund 2020-03-09 18:47:54 Re: shared-memory based stats collector