Re: Crash after a call to pg_backup_start()

From: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
To: Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org, guofenglinux(at)gmail(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Crash after a call to pg_backup_start()
Date: 2022-10-24 05:19:08
Message-ID: Y1YgTH3bt65czqkg@paquier.xyz
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, Oct 24, 2022 at 11:42:58AM +0900, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
> At Sat, 22 Oct 2022 09:56:06 +0200, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> wrote in
>> My intention here was that the Assert should be inside the block, that
>> is, we already know that at least one is true, and we want to make sure
>> that they are not *both* true.
>>
>> AFAICT the attached patch also fixes the bug without making the assert
>> weaker.

On the contrary, it seems to me that putting the assertion within the
if() block makes the assertion weaker, because we would never check
for an incorrect state after do_pg_abort_backup() is registered (aka
any pg_backup_start() call) when not entering in this if() block.

Saying that, if you feel otherwise I am fine with your conclusion as
well, so feel free to solve this issue as you see fit. :p
--
Michael

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Julien Rouhaud 2022-10-24 05:33:12 Re: Allow file inclusion in pg_hba and pg_ident files
Previous Message Jeff Davis 2022-10-24 04:32:39 Re: Decoupling antiwraparound autovacuum from special rules around auto cancellation