Re: [HACKERS] Assertion failure when the non-exclusive pg_stop_backup aborted. - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Michael Paquier
Subject Re: [HACKERS] Assertion failure when the non-exclusive pg_stop_backup aborted.
Date
Msg-id CAB7nPqSEzGHJCGq6NFO6c1j0QTP5VtLVAq_Zfdc+6CJ0TKgr8Q@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] Assertion failure when the non-exclusive pg_stop_backup aborted.  (Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] Assertion failure when the non-exclusive pg_stop_backup aborted.  (Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 9:37 AM, Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 8:03 AM, Michael Paquier
> <michael.paquier@gmail.com> wrote:
>> You could just add "as this allows to keep backup counters kept in
>> shared memory consistent with the state of the session starting or
>> stopping a backup.".
>
> Thank you for the suggestion, Michael-san. Attached updated patch.
> Please review it.

[nit]
+     * or stoppping a backup.
s/stoppping/stopping/
Fujii-san, please note that the same concept does not apply to
do_pg_start_backup().
     * reason, *all* functionality between do_pg_start_backup() and
-     * do_pg_stop_backup() should be inside the error cleanup block!
+     * do_pg_stop_backup(), including do_pg_stop_backup() should be inside
+     * the error cleanup block!     */
Weirdly worded here. "between do_pg_start_backup until
do_pg_stop_backup is done" sounds better?

[/nit]
-- 
Michael


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Masahiko Sawada
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Assertion failure when the non-exclusive pg_stop_backup aborted.
Next
From: Amit Langote
Date:
Subject: Re: [Sender Address Forgery]Re: [HACKERS] path toward fasterpartition pruning