From: | Victor Yegorov <vyegorov(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com> |
Cc: | Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>, sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com, bdrouvot(at)amazon(dot)com, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Deadlock between backend and recovery may not be detected |
Date: | 2021-01-05 11:26:47 |
Message-ID: | CAGnEboiHfknFwckoE4CuMsRaBEtPOisW1of3sUr_nvbdkyZafA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
вт, 5 янв. 2021 г. в 07:26, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com>:
> This situation makes me feel that I'm inclined to skip the back-patch to
> v9.5.
> Because the next minor version release is the final one for v9.5. So if we
> unexpectedly introduce the bug to v9.5 by the back-patch, there is no
> chance to fix that. OTOH, of course, if we don't do the back-patch, there
> is
> no chance to fix the deadlock detection bug since the final minor version
> for v9.5 doesn't include that bug fix. But I'm afraid that the back-patch
> to v9.5 may give more risk than gain.
>
> Thought?
>
Honestly, I was thinking that this will not be backpatched at all
and really am glad we're getting this fixed in the back branches as well.
Therefore I think it's fine to skip 9.5, though I
would've mentioned this in the commit message.
--
Victor Yegorov
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2021-01-05 11:41:57 | Re: Safety/validity of resetting permissions by updating system tables |
Previous Message | Benoit Lobréau | 2021-01-05 11:18:10 | recovery_target_timeline & documentation |