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 | CAB7nPqSVN7eSns0yVgdRWYbdkjNiewNtA2pHrPeysbXu+viM-w@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 Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 5:38 PM, Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> wrote: > After off-discussion with Fujii-san, I've updated the comment of why > we should disallow interrupts before setting/cleanup the session-level > lock. Please review it. + /* + * Set session-level lock. If we allow interrupts before setting + * session-level lock, we could call callbacks with an inconsistent + * state. To avoid calling CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS by LWLockReleaseClearVar + * which is called by WALInsertLockRelease before changing the backup + * state we change it while holding the WAL insert lock. + */ So you are just adding the reference to WALInsertLockRelease.. Instead of writing the function names for LWLocks, I would just write "To avoid calling CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS which can happen when releasing a LWLock" and be done with it. There is no point to list a full function dependency list, which could change in the future with static routines of lwlock.c. -- Michael
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: