On Thu, Oct 31, 2019 at 05:38:32PM +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
> Thanks for the patch! Looks good to me.
Thanks. I have applied the core fix down to 9.4, leaving the new
assertion improvements only for HEAD.
--
Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Oct 31, 2019, at 10:11, Michael Paquier wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 30, 2019 at 05:43:04PM +0900, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
>> At Wed, 30 Oct 2019 17:21:17 +0900, Fujii Masao
>> wrote in
>>> This change causes every ending backends to always take the exclusive lock
>>> even when it's not in SyncR
On Thu, Oct 31, 2019 at 11:12 AM Michael Paquier wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 30, 2019 at 05:43:04PM +0900, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
> > At Wed, 30 Oct 2019 17:21:17 +0900, Fujii Masao
> > wrote in
> >> This change causes every ending backends to always take the exclusive lock
> >> even when it's not
On Wed, Oct 30, 2019 at 05:43:04PM +0900, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
> At Wed, 30 Oct 2019 17:21:17 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote
> in
>> This change causes every ending backends to always take the exclusive lock
>> even when it's not in SyncRep queue. This may be problematic, for example,
>> when term
On Wed, Oct 30, 2019 at 12:34:28PM +0900, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
> If we do that strictly, other functions like
> SyncRepGetOldestSyncRecPtr need the same Assert()s. I think static
> functions don't need Assert() and caution in their comments would be
> enough.
Perhaps. I'd rather be careful th
On Wed, Oct 30, 2019 at 05:21:17PM +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
> This change causes every ending backends to always take the exclusive lock
> even when it's not in SyncRep queue. This may be problematic, for example,
> when terminating multiple backends at the same time? If yes,
> it might be better
Hello.
At Wed, 30 Oct 2019 17:21:17 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote
in
> This change causes every ending backends to always take the exclusive lock
> even when it's not in SyncRep queue. This may be problematic, for example,
> when terminating multiple backends at the same time? If yes,
> it might be
On Wed, Oct 30, 2019 at 4:16 PM lingce.ldm wrote:
>
> On Oct 29, 2019, at 18:50, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
>
>
> Hello.
>
> At Fri, 25 Oct 2019 15:18:34 +0800, "Dongming Liu"
> wrote in
>
>
> Hi,
>
> I recently discovered two possible bugs about synchronous replication.
>
> 1. SyncRepCleanupAtPr
On Oct 30, 2019, at 09:45, Michael Paquier mailto:mich...@paquier.xyz>> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 29, 2019 at 07:50:01PM +0900, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
>> At Fri, 25 Oct 2019 15:18:34 +0800, "Dongming Liu"
>> wrote in
>>> I recently discovered two possible bugs about synchronous replication.
>>>
On Oct 29, 2019, at 18:50, Kyotaro Horiguchi mailto:horikyota@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> Hello.
>
> At Fri, 25 Oct 2019 15:18:34 +0800, "Dongming Liu"
> mailto:lingce@alibaba-inc.com>> wrote in
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I recently discovered two possible bugs about synchronous replication.
>>
>> 1
On Wed, Oct 30, 2019 at 9:12 AM Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 29, 2019 at 01:40:41PM +0800, Dongming Liu wrote:
> > Can someone help me to confirm that these two problems are bugs?
> > If they are bugs, please help review the patch or provide better fix
> > suggestions.
>
> There is no nee
At Wed, 30 Oct 2019 10:45:11 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote
in
> On Tue, Oct 29, 2019 at 07:50:01PM +0900, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
> > At Fri, 25 Oct 2019 15:18:34 +0800, "Dongming Liu"
> > wrote in
> >> I recently discovered two possible bugs about synchronous replication.
> >>
> >> 1. SyncR
On Tue, Oct 29, 2019 at 07:50:01PM +0900, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
> At Fri, 25 Oct 2019 15:18:34 +0800, "Dongming Liu"
> wrote in
>> I recently discovered two possible bugs about synchronous replication.
>>
>> 1. SyncRepCleanupAtProcExit may delete an element that has been deleted
>> SyncRepCl
On Tue, Oct 29, 2019 at 01:40:41PM +0800, Dongming Liu wrote:
> Can someone help me to confirm that these two problems are bugs?
> If they are bugs, please help review the patch or provide better fix
> suggestions.
There is no need to send periodic pings. Sometimes it takes time to
get replies as
Hello.
At Fri, 25 Oct 2019 15:18:34 +0800, "Dongming Liu"
wrote in
>
> Hi,
>
> I recently discovered two possible bugs about synchronous replication.
>
> 1. SyncRepCleanupAtProcExit may delete an element that has been deleted
> SyncRepCleanupAtProcExit first checks whether the queue is detac
Can someone help me to confirm that these two problems are bugs?
If they are bugs, please help review the patch or provide better fix
suggestions.
Thanks.
Best regards,
--
Dongming Liu
--
From:LIU Dongming
Sent At:2019 Oct. 25 (Fri.
16 matches
Mail list logo