On Thu, Sep 5, 2019 at 4:52 PM Michael Paquier wrote:
>
> On Thu, Sep 05, 2019 at 04:03:22PM +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
> > So, barring any objection, I will commit the attached patch.
>
> LGTM. Thanks!
Committed. Thanks!
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
On Thu, Sep 05, 2019 at 04:03:22PM +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
> So, barring any objection, I will commit the attached patch.
LGTM. Thanks!
--
Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Thu, Sep 5, 2019 at 11:10 AM Michael Paquier wrote:
>
> On Thu, Sep 05, 2019 at 10:53:19AM +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
> > It's ok to use PG_RETURN_BOOL(false) instead of breaking out of the loop
> > in that case. Which would make the code simpler.
>
> Okay. I would have done so FWIW.
>
> > But
On Thu, Sep 5, 2019 at 10:26 AM Michael Paquier wrote:
>
> On Thu, Sep 05, 2019 at 09:46:26AM +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
> > I found small issue in pg_promote(). If postmaster dies
> > while pg_promote() is waiting for the standby promotion to finish,
> > pg_promote() can cause busy loop. This happ
On Thu, Sep 05, 2019 at 10:53:19AM +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
> It's ok to use PG_RETURN_BOOL(false) instead of breaking out of the loop
> in that case. Which would make the code simpler.
Okay. I would have done so FWIW.
> But I don't think it's worth warning about postmaster death here
> because
On Thu, Sep 05, 2019 at 09:46:26AM +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
> I found small issue in pg_promote(). If postmaster dies
> while pg_promote() is waiting for the standby promotion to finish,
> pg_promote() can cause busy loop. This happens because
> pg_promote() does nothing when WaitLatch() detects
>
