On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 1:44 PM, Fujii Masao <masao.fu...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 1:32 PM, Michael Paquier > <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 11:16 PM, Fujii Masao <masao.fu...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> You seem to add another entry for this patch into CommitFest. >>> Either of them needs to be removed. >>> https://commitfest.postgresql.org/10/698/ >> >> Indeed. I just removed this one. >> >>> This patch prevents pg_stop_backup from starting while pg_start_backup >>> is running. OTOH, we also should prevent pg_start_backup from starting >>> until "previous" pg_stop_backup has completed? What happens if >>> pg_start_backup starts while pg_stop_backup is running? >>> As far as I read the current code, ISTM that there is no need to do that, >>> but it's better to do the double check. >> >> I don't agree about doing that. > > Hmm... my previous comment was confusing. I wanted to comment "it's better > *also for you* to do the double check whether we need to prevent > pg_start_backup > while pg_stop_backup is running or not". Your answer seems to be almost the > same > as mine, i.e., not necessary. Right?
Yes, that's not necessary to do more. In the worst case, say pg_start_backup starts when pg_stop_backup is running. And pg_stop_backup has decremented the backup counters, but not yet removed the backup_label, then pg_start_backup would just choke on the presence of the backup_label file. -- Michael -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
