| From: | Ian Lawrence Barwick <barwick(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se> |
| Cc: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Aleksander Alekseev <aleksander(at)timescale(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: pg_rewind race condition just after promotion |
| Date: | 2022-12-11 00:01:05 |
| Message-ID: | CAB8KJ=iNTR6NOSd=EVmSqcGURNbyO9ah3tKZtz1p8KzNzc1ugA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
2021年11月9日(火) 20:31 Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se>:
>
> > On 14 Jul 2021, at 14:03, Aleksander Alekseev <aleksander(at)timescale(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > The following review has been posted through the commitfest application:
> > make installcheck-world: tested, passed
> > Implements feature: tested, passed
> > Spec compliant: tested, passed
> > Documentation: tested, passed
> >
> > The v3 patch LGTM. I wonder if we should explicitly say in pg_rewind tests that
> > they _don't_ have to call `checkpoint`, or otherwise, we will lose the test
> > coverage for this scenario. But I don't have a strong opinion on this one.
> >
> > The new status of this patch is: Ready for Committer
>
> Heikki, do you have plans to address this patch during this CF?
Friendly reminder ping one year on; I haven't looked at this patch in
detail but going by the thread contents it seems it should be marked
"Ready for Committer"? Moved to the next CF anyway.
Regards
Ian Barwick
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2022-12-11 00:11:13 | Re: GetNewObjectId question |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2022-12-11 00:00:13 | Re: Error-safe user functions |