Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
> On 2021-08-07 13:06:47 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Fair. But I suggest that the first cut should look more like what
>> I suggest above, ie just be willing to lose events during shutdown.
>> The downsides of that are not so enormous that we should be willing
>> to undertake major klugery to avoid it before we've even got a
>> semi-working system.
> I think that's more likely to hide bugs unfortunately. Consider fa91d4c91f2 -
> I might not have found that if we had just ignored "too late" pgstats activity
> in pgstats.c or fd.c, and that's not an edge case.
Depends what you want to define as a bug. What I am not happy about
is the prospect of random assertion failures for the next six months
while you finish redesigning half of the system. The rest of us
have work we want to get done, too. I don't object to the idea of
making no-lost-events an end goal, but we are clearly not ready
for that today.
regards, tom lane
