From: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
Cc: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Allowing multiple concurrent base backups |
Date: | 2011-01-24 20:31:16 |
Message-ID: | AANLkTimPHfzd9FYD8kzBDGPewuCSLJXYdz0gYq_ApV=A@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 21:14, Heikki Linnakangas
<heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
> On 24.01.2011 20:22, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>> I can't see an explicit check for the user ttempting to do
>> pg_stop_backup() when there is a nonexclusive backup running? Maybe
>> I'm reading it wrong? The case being when a user has started a backup
>> with pg_basebackup but then connects and manually does a
>> pg_stop_backup. ISTM it drops us ina codepath that just doesn't do the
>> decrement, but also doesn't throw an error?
>
> It throws an error later when it won't find backup_label. For better or
> worse, it's always been like that.
Isn't that going to leave us in a broken state though? As in a
mistaken pg_stop_backup() will decrement the counter both breaking the
streaming base backup, and also possibly throwing an assert when that
one eventually wants to do it's do_pg_stop_backup()?
--
Magnus Hagander
Me: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2011-01-24 21:02:08 | Re: Allowing multiple concurrent base backups |
Previous Message | Richard Broersma | 2011-01-24 20:17:16 | Seeking Mentors for Funded Reviewers |