| From: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: pg_replication_origin_drop API potential race condition |
| Date: | 2021-02-04 05:43:39 |
| Message-ID: | CAA4eK1KZG63qUYK-F45zs9bHeZpCEB+bjewcGPkBt-LeF-91WA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Feb 4, 2021 at 9:57 AM Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Feb 3, 2021 at 11:17 PM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> >
> > How about if we call replorigin_by_name() inside replorigin_drop after
> > acquiring the lock? Wouldn't that close this race condition? We are
> > doing something similar for pg_replication_origin_advance().
> >
>
> Yes, that seems ok.
>
> I wonder if it is better to isolate that locked portion
> (replyorigin_by_name + replorigin_drop) so that in addition to being
> called from pg_replication_origin_drop, we can call it internally from
> PG code to safely drop the origins.
>
Yeah, I think that would be really good.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Amit Langote | 2021-02-04 05:45:34 | Re: a curious case of force_parallel_mode = on with jit'ing |
| Previous Message | Dilip Kumar | 2021-02-04 04:58:02 | Re: Is Recovery actually paused? |