Andres Freund wrote: > I think this isn't particularly pretty, but it seems to be working well > enough, and changing it would be pretty invasive. So keeping in line > with all that code seems to be easier. OK, I'm convinced with this part to remove the call of LockSharedObjectForSession that uses dontWait and replace it by a loop in ResolveRecoveryConflictWithDatabase.
> Note that InRecovery doesn't mean what you probably think it means: > [stuff] > bool InRecovery = false; Yes, right. I misunderstood with RecoveryInProgress(). > The assertion actually should be even stricter: > Assert(!InRecovery || (sessionLock && dontWait)); > i.e. we never acquire a heavyweight lock in the startup process unless > it's a session lock (as we don't have resource managers/a xact to track > locks) and we don't wait (as we don't have the deadlock detector > infrastructure set up). No problems with this assertion here. -- Michael -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
