| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Maksim(dot)Melnikov" <m(dot)melnikov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> |
| Cc: | Kirill Reshke <reshkekirill(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: sync_standbys_defined read/write race on startup |
| Date: | 2025-04-11 01:10:46 |
| Message-ID: | Z_hsFhOu1OmFXYAK@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Apr 10, 2025 at 12:55:54PM +0300, Maksim.Melnikov wrote:
> On 10.04.2025 12:15, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> Hmm, yeah. Instead of last, it would be better to put it in second
>> place perhaps, for clarity? That would be the same at the end, but we
>> would be slightly more consistent with the past logic regarding the
>> ordering. Does that look OK to you?
>
> Yes, from my point of view it looks fine.
Thanks for the double-check. I've played a couple more hours with the
startup case, like playing with s_s_names set but uninitialized in
shmem while stucking backends, and that seems OK, so applied down to
v13. Let's see how it goes..
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David G. Johnston | 2025-04-11 01:37:40 | Re: n_ins_since_vacuum stats for aborted transactions |
| Previous Message | Thomas Munro | 2025-04-11 00:50:43 | Re: Streaming relation data out of order |