Re: Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2

On Sat, Apr 23, 2016 at 7:44 PM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 12:46 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
> <horiguchi.kyotaro@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote:
>>
>>
>> assign_s_s_names causes SEGV when it is called without calling
>> check_s_s_names. I think that's not the case for this varialbe
>> because it is unresettable amid a session. It is very uneasy for
>> me but I don't see a proper means to reset
>> syncrep_parse_result.
>>
>
> Is it because syncrep_parse_result is not freed after creating a copy of it
> in assign_synchronous_standby_names()?  If it so, then I think we need to
> call SyncRepFreeConfig(syncrep_parse_result); in
> assign_synchronous_standby_names at below place:
>
> + /* Copy the parsed config into TopMemoryContext if exists */
>
> + if (syncrep_parse_result)
>
> + SyncRepConfig = SyncRepCopyConfig(syncrep_parse_result);
>
> Could you please explain how to trigger the scenario where you have seen
> SEGV?

Seeing this discussion moving on, I am wondering if we should not
discuss those improvements for 9.7. We are getting close to beta 1,
and this is clearly not a bug, and it's not like HEAD is broken. So I
think that we should not take the risk to make the code unstable at
this stage.
-- 
Michael