| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net>, pgsql-committers <pgsql-committers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: pgsql: Mark pg_start_backup and pg_stop_backup as parallel-restricted. |
| Date: | 2017-03-06 21:56:39 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoZLTB+1V1qZV6+E3R0BmHkBVReR9KP=tynUVNySgUhWkw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-committers |
On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 3:23 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> 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.
Sounds like you want IsParallelWorker().
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Stephen Frost | 2017-03-06 22:06:04 | pgsql: pg_upgrade: Fix large object COMMENTS, SECURITY LABELS |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2017-03-06 21:51:01 | pgsql: Avoid dangling pointer to relation name in RLS code path in DoCo |