| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> | 
|---|---|
| To: | Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> | 
| Cc: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> | 
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Assertion failure when the non-exclusive pg_stop_backup aborted. | 
| Date: | 2017-11-15 05:38:34 | 
| Message-ID: | CAB7nPqRHdq01Y9ZWfPLnRowJA=CqHL4JYymqbrVUumES=pPkSw@mail.gmail.com | 
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email | 
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers | 
On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 12:12 PM, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> I think we need to check only sessionBackupState and don't need to
> check XLogCtl->Insert.exclusiveBackupState in do_pg_abort_backup(). We
> can quickly return if sessionBackupState !=
> SESSION_BACKUP_NON_EXCLUSIVE. In your suggestion, I think we can still
> get an assertion failure when pg_stop_backup(false) waiting for
> archiving is terminated while concurrent an exclusive backup is in
> progress.
I have just gone through the thread once again, and noticed that it is
actually what I suggested upthread:
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAB7nPqTm5CDrR5Y7yyfKy+PVDZ6dWS_jKG1KStaN5m95gAMTFQ@mail.gmail.com
But your v2 posted here did not do that so it is incorrect from the start:
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAD21AoA+isXYL1_ZXMnk9xJhYEL5h6rxJtTovLi7fumqfmCYgg@mail.gmail.com
We both got a bit confused here. As do_pg_abort_backup() is only used
for non-exclusive backups (including those taken through the
replication protocol), going through the session lock for checks is
fine. Could you update your patch accordingly please?
-- 
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Fabien COELHO | 2017-11-15 05:56:38 | Re: [HACKERS] pgbench regression test failure | 
| Previous Message | Masahiko Sawada | 2017-11-15 03:12:32 | Re: [HACKERS] Assertion failure when the non-exclusive pg_stop_backup aborted. |