On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 11:18 AM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 10:34 AM Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 10:03:59AM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > > I think, in this case, it might be advisable to just fix the problem
> > > (a) which is what has been reported originally in the thread and
> > > AFAICS, the fix for that is clear as compared to the problem (b). If
> > > you agree, then we can discuss what is the best fix for the first
> > > problem (a).
> >
> > Okay, thanks for the input. The fix for (a) would be in my opinion to
> > just move the call to RecoveryInProgress() out of the critical section,
> > then save the result into a variable, and use the variable within the
> > critical section to avoid the potential palloc() problems. What do you
> > think?
> >
>
> Your proposed solution makes sense to me. IIUC, this is quite similar
> to what Dilip has also proposed [1].
>
I can take care of committing something along the lines of Dilip's
patch if you are okay.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
