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 | CAB7nPqSEzGHJCGq6NFO6c1j0QTP5VtLVAq_Zfdc+6CJ0TKgr8Q@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 Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 9:37 AM, Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 8:03 AM, Michael Paquier > <michael.paquier@gmail.com> wrote: >> You could just add "as this allows to keep backup counters kept in >> shared memory consistent with the state of the session starting or >> stopping a backup.". > > Thank you for the suggestion, Michael-san. Attached updated patch. > Please review it. [nit] + * or stoppping a backup. s/stoppping/stopping/ Fujii-san, please note that the same concept does not apply to do_pg_start_backup(). * reason, *all* functionality between do_pg_start_backup() and - * do_pg_stop_backup() should be inside the error cleanup block! + * do_pg_stop_backup(), including do_pg_stop_backup() should be inside + * the error cleanup block! */ Weirdly worded here. "between do_pg_start_backup until do_pg_stop_backup is done" sounds better? [/nit] -- Michael
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: