Re: Unstable tests for recovery conflict handling - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Unstable tests for recovery conflict handling
Date
Msg-id 2468550.1658860230@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Unstable tests for recovery conflict handling  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: Unstable tests for recovery conflict handling
List pgsql-hackers
Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
> On 2022-07-26 13:57:53 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> So this is not a case of RecoveryConflictInterrupt doing the wrong thing:
>> the startup process hasn't detected the buffer conflict in the first
>> place.

> I wonder if this, at least partially, could be be due to the elog thing
> I was complaining about nearby. I.e. we decide to FATAL as part of a
> recovery conflict interrupt, and then during that ERROR out as part of
> another recovery conflict interrupt (because nothing holds interrupts as
> part of FATAL).

There are all sorts of things one could imagine going wrong in the
backend receiving the recovery conflict interrupt, but AFAICS in these
failures, the startup process hasn't sent a recovery conflict interrupt.
It certainly hasn't logged anything suggesting it noticed a conflict.

            regards, tom lane



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Jacob Champion
Date:
Subject: Re: Transparent column encryption
Next
From: Simon Riggs
Date:
Subject: Re: XID formatting and SLRU refactorings (was: Add 64-bit XIDs into PostgreSQL 15)