From: | Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(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: | 2017-11-16 11:17:47 |
Message-ID: | CAD21AoA5ZjXKf+0+sC34k_J=Dd-cR0KBgg6zfcFhKMrCjqxhsQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 1:11 PM, Michael Paquier
<michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 10:57 AM, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> Agreed. Attached the updated patch, please review it.
Thank you for the comment.
> + /*
> + * Quick exit if session is not keeping around a non-exclusive backup
> + * already started.
> + */
> + if (sessionBackupState != SESSION_BACKUP_NON_EXCLUSIVE)
> + return;
> I think that it would be more solid to use SESSION_BACKUP_NONE for the
> comparison, and complete the assertion after the quick exit as follows
> as this code path should never be taken for an exclusive backup:
Agreed.
> + Assert(XLogCtl->Insert.nonExclusiveBackups > 0 &&
> + sessionBackupState == SESSION_BACKUP_NON_EXCLUSIVE);
>
> And your patch would discard both SESSION_BACKUP_EXCLUSIVE and
> SESSION_BACKUP_NONE.
Attached the latest patch. Please review it.
Regards,
--
Masahiko Sawada
NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION
NTT Open Source Software Center
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
fix_do_pg_abort_backup_v6.patch | application/octet-stream | 1.9 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Daniel Verite | 2017-11-16 11:27:48 | Re: [HACKERS] Dynamic result sets from procedures |
Previous Message | Adrian Escoms | 2017-11-16 11:08:35 | Re: [HACKERS] Inconsistencies between pg_settings and postgresql.conf |