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: | 2017-05-06 10:40:42 |
Message-ID: | CAB7nPqSXgd=VaxX5PBp17HvkKOoZ4NtZZf2_Y8QqykEY1WprvA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 11:50 PM, Peter Eisentraut
<peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> On 5/5/17 01:26, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> The only code path doing HOT-pruning and generating WAL is
>> heap_page_prune(). Do you think that we need to worry about FPWs as
>> well?
>>
>> Attached is an updated patch, which also forbids the run of any
>> replication commands when the stopping state is reached.
>
> I have committed this without the HOT pruning change. That can be
> considered separately, and I think it could use another round of
> thinking about it.
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.
--
Michael
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Vik Fearing | 2017-05-06 10:44:40 | Re: password_encryption, default and 'plain' support |
Previous Message | Fabien COELHO | 2017-05-06 08:42:04 | "CURRENT_ROLE" is not documented |