On Tue, 2010-02-23 at 18:58 +0000, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-02-23 at 09:45 -0800, Josh Berkus wrote:
> > This issue is 100% reproduceable.
>
> IMHO there in no problem in that behaviour. If somebody requests a
> backup then we should wait for it to complete. Kevin's suggestion of
> pg_fail_backup() is the only sensible conclusion there because it gives
> an explicit way out of deadlock.
>
> ISTM the problem is that you didn't test. Steps 3 and 4 should have been
> reversed. Perhaps we should put something in the docs to say "and test".
> The correct resolution is to put in an archive_command that works.
The problem isn't that it is a bad archive_command, it is that
PostgreSQL has no way to deal with this gracefully. Yes people should
test but are we dealing with the real world or not?
>
> So I don't see this as something that needs fixing for 9.0. There is
> already too much non-essential code there, all of which needs to be
> tested. I don't think adding in new corner cases to "help" people makes
> any sense until we have automated testing that allows us to rerun the
> regression tests to check all this stuff still works.
This will bite us if we release like this.
Joshua D. Drake
--
PostgreSQL.org Major Contributor
Command Prompt, Inc: http://www.commandprompt.com/ - 503.667.4564
Consulting, Training, Support, Custom Development, Engineering
Respect is earned, not gained through arbitrary and repetitive use or Mr. or Sir.
