On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 10:07 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Fujii Masao <masao.fu...@gmail.com> writes: >> On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 11:08 AM, Tom Lane <t...@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 -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
