From: | Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
Cc: | Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, exclusion(at)gmail(dot)com |
Subject: | Re: Fix race condition in InvalidatePossiblyObsoleteSlot() |
Date: | 2024-02-20 16:03:53 |
Message-ID: | ZdTNafYSxwnKNIhj@ip-10-97-1-34.eu-west-3.compute.internal |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On Tue, Feb 20, 2024 at 02:33:44PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 20, 2024 at 08:51:17AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> > Prefixing these with "initial_" is fine, IMO. That shows the
> > intention that these come from the slot's data before doing the
> > termination. So I'm OK with what's been proposed in v3.
>
> I was looking at that a second time, and just concluded that this is
> OK, so I've applied that down to 16, wordsmithing a bit the comments.
Thanks!
FWIW, I've started to write a POC regarding the test we mentioned up-thread.
The POC test is based on what has been submitted by Michael in [1]. The POC test
seems to work fine and it seems that nothing more is needed in [1] (at some point
I thought I would need the ability to wake up multiple "wait" injection points
in sequence but that was not necessary).
I'll polish and propose my POC test once [1] is pushed (unless you're curious
about it before).
[1]: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/ZdLuxBk5hGpol91B%40paquier.xyz
Regards,
--
Bertrand Drouvot
PostgreSQL Contributors Team
RDS Open Source Databases
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Ilyasov Ian | 2024-02-20 16:13:41 | RE: Integer undeflow in fprintf in dsa.c |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2024-02-20 15:58:50 | Re: pg_restore problem to load constraints with tables |