Re: Deadlock between backend and recovery may not be detected

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

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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