Hi,
On 1/5/21 7:26 AM, Fujii Masao wrote:
> CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do
> not click links or open attachments unless you can confirm the sender
> and know the content is safe.
>
>
>
> On 2020/12/25 13:16, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
>> At Wed, 23 Dec 2020 21:42:47 +0900, Fujii Masao
>> <masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com> wrote in
>>> you. Attached
>>> is the updated of the patch. What about this version?
>>
>> The patch contains a hunk in the following structure.
>>
>> + if (got_standby_lock_timeout)
>> + goto cleanup;
>> +
>> + if (got_standby_deadlock_timeout)
>> + {
>> ...
>> + }
>> +
>> +cleanup:
>>
>> It is eqivalent to
>>
>> + if (!got_standby_lock_timeout && got_standby_deadlock_timeout)
>> + {
>> ...
>> + }
>>
>> Is there any reason for the goto?
>
> Yes. That's because we have the following code using goto.
>
> + /* Quick exit if there's no work to be done */
> + if (!VirtualTransactionIdIsValid(*backends))
> + goto cleanup;
>
>
> Regarding the back-patch, I was thinking to back-patch this to all the
> supported branches. But I found that it's not easy to do that to v9.5
> because v9.5 doesn't have some infrastructure code that this bug fix
> patch depends on. So at least the commit 37c54863cf as the infrastructure
> also needs to be back-patched to v9.5. And ISTM that some related commits
> f868a8143a and 8f0de712c3 need to be back-patched. Probably there might
> be some other changes to be back-patched. Unfortunately they cannot be
> applied to v9.5 cleanly and additional changes are necessary.
>
> This situation makes me feel that I'm inclined to skip the back-patch
> to v9.5.
> Because the next minor version release is the final one for v9.5. So
> if we
> unexpectedly introduce the bug to v9.5 by the back-patch, there is no
> chance to fix that. OTOH, of course, if we don't do the back-patch,
> there is
> no chance to fix the deadlock detection bug since the final minor version
> for v9.5 doesn't include that bug fix. But I'm afraid that the back-patch
> to v9.5 may give more risk than gain.
>
> Thought?
Reading your arguments, I am inclined to think the same.
Bertrand
