On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 11:18 AM Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 10:34 AM Michael Paquier <mich...@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
