| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Petr Jelinek <petr(dot)jelinek(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: logical replication and PANIC during shutdown checkpoint in publisher |
| Date: | 2017-05-26 18:16:19 |
| Message-ID: | CAB7nPqS7Avu_yTr6FMhet1gutTwp7q+SfkyO4-yO0vCR8Vg2ww@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, May 6, 2017 at 6:40 AM, Michael Paquier
<michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Agreed. Just adding an ERROR message in XLogInsert() is not going to
> help much as this leads also to PANIC for critical sections :(
> So a patch really needs to be a no-op for all WAL-related operations
> within the WAL sender, and that will be quite invasive I am afraid.
>
>> I will move the open item to "Older Bugs" now, because the user
>> experience regression, so to speak, in version 10 has been addressed.
>> (This could be a backpatching candidate, but I am not planning on it for
>> next week's releases in any case.)
>
> No issues with all that.
So, now that the last round of minor releases has happened and that
some dust has settled on this patch, shouldn't there be a backpatch?
If yes, do you need patches for all branches? This problems goes down
to 9.2 anyway as BASE_BACKUP can generate end-of-backup records.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Thomas Munro | 2017-05-26 18:19:37 | Re: Extra Vietnamese unaccent rules |
| Previous Message | Vik Fearing | 2017-05-26 17:31:29 | Re: Renaming a table to an array's autogenerated name |