On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 10:07 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com> writes:
>> On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 11:08 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>>> elog(FATAL) is *certainly* not a better idea. I think there's really
>>> nothing that can be done, you just have to silently ignore the error.
>
>> Hmm.. some functions called by a signal handler use elog(FATAL), e.g.,
>> RecoveryConflictInterrupt() do that when unknown conflict mode is given
>> as an argument. Are these calls unsafe, too?
>
> [ shrug... ] I stated before that the Hot Standby patch is doing
> utterly unsafe things in signal handlers. Simon rejected that.
> I am waiting for irrefutable evidence to emerge from the field
> (and am very confident that it will be forthcoming...) before
> I argue with him further. Meanwhile, I'm not going to accept anything
> unsafe in a core facility like this patch is going to be.
Oh. I thought you had ignored his objections and fixed it. Why are
we releasing 9.0 with this problem again? Surely this is nuts.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise Postgres Company
