Re: [HACKERS] Assertion failure when the non-exclusive pg_stop_backup aborted.
От | Michael Paquier |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [HACKERS] Assertion failure when the non-exclusive pg_stop_backup aborted. |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAB7nPqRHdq01Y9ZWfPLnRowJA=CqHL4JYymqbrVUumES=pPkSw@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [HACKERS] Assertion failure when the non-exclusive pg_stop_backup aborted. (Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: [HACKERS] Assertion failure when the non-exclusive pg_stop_backup aborted.
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 12:12 PM, Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> wrote: > I think we need to check only sessionBackupState and don't need to > check XLogCtl->Insert.exclusiveBackupState in do_pg_abort_backup(). We > can quickly return if sessionBackupState != > SESSION_BACKUP_NON_EXCLUSIVE. In your suggestion, I think we can still > get an assertion failure when pg_stop_backup(false) waiting for > archiving is terminated while concurrent an exclusive backup is in > progress. I have just gone through the thread once again, and noticed that it is actually what I suggested upthread: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAB7nPqTm5CDrR5Y7yyfKy+PVDZ6dWS_jKG1KStaN5m95gAMTFQ@mail.gmail.com But your v2 posted here did not do that so it is incorrect from the start: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAD21AoA+isXYL1_ZXMnk9xJhYEL5h6rxJtTovLi7fumqfmCYgg@mail.gmail.com We both got a bit confused here. As do_pg_abort_backup() is only used for non-exclusive backups (including those taken through the replication protocol), going through the session lock for checks is fine. Could you update your patch accordingly please? -- Michael
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: