| From: | "Bossart, Nathan" <bossartn(at)amazon(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
| Cc: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: race condition when writing pg_control |
| Date: | 2020-06-08 03:25:31 |
| Message-ID: | 6D187DAC-C177-4556-929D-718094FF6143@amazon.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 6/7/20, 7:50 PM, "Thomas Munro" <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> I pushed 0001 and 0002, squashed into one commit. I'm not sure about
> 0003. If we're going to do that, wouldn't it be better to just
> acquire the lock in that one extra place in StartupXLOG(), rather than
> introducing the extra parameter?
Thanks! The approach for 0003 was discussed a bit upthread [0]. I do
not have a strong opinion, but I lean towards just acquiring the lock.
Nathan
[0] https://postgr.es/m/20200527071053.GD103662%40paquier.xyz
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David Fetter | 2020-06-08 04:38:33 | Bump default wal_level to logical |
| Previous Message | Thomas Munro | 2020-06-08 02:48:55 | Re: race condition when writing pg_control |