| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, tushar <tushar(dot)ahuja(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Error while creating subscription when server is running in single user mode |
| Date: | 2017-06-06 01:12:55 |
| Message-ID: | a1e19df3-7d1c-c479-4e23-7c121d0fa33d@2ndquadrant.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 6/2/17 23:06, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 6/2/17 15:41, Tom Lane wrote:
>> It's certainly plausible that we could have the latch code just ignore
>> WL_POSTMASTER_DEATH if not IsUnderPostmaster. I think that the original
>> reasoning for not doing that was that the calling code should know which
>> environment it's in, and not pass an unimplementable wait-exit reason;
>> so silently ignoring the bit could mask a bug. Perhaps that argument is
>> no longer attractive. Alternatively, we could fix the relevant call sites
>> to do "(IsUnderPostmaster ? WL_POSTMASTER_DEATH : 0)", and keep the strict
>> behavior for the majority of call sites.
>
> There are a lot of those call sites. (And a lot of duplicate code for
> what to do if postmaster death actually happens.) I doubt we want to
> check them all.
>
> The attached patch fixes the reported issue for me.
committed
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Thomas Munro | 2017-06-06 01:40:07 | Re: PG10 transition tables, wCTEs and multiple operations on the same table |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2017-06-06 01:07:24 | Re: logical replication and PANIC during shutdown checkpoint in publisher |