Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Mark pg_start_backup and pg_stop_backup as parallel-restricted.
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Mark pg_start_backup and pg_stop_backup as parallel-restricted. |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 25505.1488831808@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Mark pg_start_backup and pg_stop_backup asparallel-restricted. (David Steele <david@pgmasters.net>) |
Ответы |
Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Mark pg_start_backup and pg_stop_backup asparallel-restricted.
Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Mark pg_start_backup and pg_stop_backup as parallel-restricted. |
Список | pgsql-committers |
David Steele <david@pgmasters.net> writes: > On 3/6/17 12:48 PM, Robert Haas wrote: >> This issue also exists in 9.6, but we obviously can't do anything >> about 9.6 clusters that already exist. Possibly this could be >> back-patched so that future 9.6 clusters would come out OK, or >> possibly we should back-patch some other fix, but that would need more >> discussion. > I think it would be worth back-patching the catalog fix for future 9.6 > clusters as a start. Yes, I think it's rather silly not to do so. We have made comparable backpatched fixes multiple times in the past. What is worth discussing is whether there are *additional* things we ought to do in 9.6 to prevent misbehavior in installations initdb'd pre-9.6.3. If there's a cheap way of testing "AmInParallelWorker", I'd be in favor of adding a quick-n-dirty test and ereport(ERROR) to these functions in the 9.6 branch, so that at least you get a clean error and not some weird misbehavior. Not sure if there's anything more we can do than that. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-committers по дате отправления: