On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 9:05 PM, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 12:04 AM, Fujii Masao wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 2:13 AM, Petr Jelinek
>> wrote:
>>> On 06/02/17 17:33, Fujii Masao wrote:
On Sun, Feb 5, 2017 at 5:11 AM, Petr Jelinek
wrote:
> On 03/02/17 19:38,
On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 12:04 AM, Fujii Masao wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 2:13 AM, Petr Jelinek
> wrote:
>> On 06/02/17 17:33, Fujii Masao wrote:
>>> On Sun, Feb 5, 2017 at 5:11 AM, Petr Jelinek
>>> wrote:
On 03/02/17 19:38, Fujii Masao wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 4, 2017 at 12:49 AM, Fujii
On Sat, Feb 4, 2017 at 3:11 PM, Petr Jelinek
wrote:
> That was the reason why DropSubscription didn't release the lock in the
> first place. It was supposed to be released at the end of the
> transaction though.
Holding an LWLock until end-of-transaction is a phenomenally bad idea,
both because y
On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 2:13 AM, Petr Jelinek
wrote:
> On 06/02/17 17:33, Fujii Masao wrote:
>> On Sun, Feb 5, 2017 at 5:11 AM, Petr Jelinek
>> wrote:
>>> On 03/02/17 19:38, Fujii Masao wrote:
On Sat, Feb 4, 2017 at 12:49 AM, Fujii Masao wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 10:56 AM, Kyotaro
On 06/02/17 17:33, Fujii Masao wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 5, 2017 at 5:11 AM, Petr Jelinek
> wrote:
>> On 03/02/17 19:38, Fujii Masao wrote:
>>> On Sat, Feb 4, 2017 at 12:49 AM, Fujii Masao wrote:
On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 10:56 AM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
wrote:
> At Fri, 3 Feb 2017 01:02:47 +09
On Sun, Feb 5, 2017 at 5:11 AM, Petr Jelinek
wrote:
> On 03/02/17 19:38, Fujii Masao wrote:
>> On Sat, Feb 4, 2017 at 12:49 AM, Fujii Masao wrote:
>>> On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 10:56 AM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
>>> wrote:
At Fri, 3 Feb 2017 01:02:47 +0900, Fujii Masao
wrote in
> On
On 03/02/17 19:38, Fujii Masao wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 4, 2017 at 12:49 AM, Fujii Masao wrote:
>> On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 10:56 AM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
>> wrote:
>>> At Fri, 3 Feb 2017 01:02:47 +0900, Fujii Masao
>>> wrote in
>>>
On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 2:36 PM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
>>>
On Sat, Feb 4, 2017 at 12:49 AM, Fujii Masao wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 10:56 AM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
> wrote:
>> At Fri, 3 Feb 2017 01:02:47 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote
>> in
>>> On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 2:36 PM, Michael Paquier
>>> wrote:
>>> > On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 2:13 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 10:56 AM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
wrote:
> At Fri, 3 Feb 2017 01:02:47 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote
> in
>> On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 2:36 PM, Michael Paquier
>> wrote:
>> > On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 2:13 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> >> Kyotaro HORIGUCHI writes:
>> >>> Then, the reason for
At Fri, 3 Feb 2017 01:02:47 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote in
> On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 2:36 PM, Michael Paquier
> wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 2:13 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Kyotaro HORIGUCHI writes:
> >>> Then, the reason for the TRY-CATCH cluase is that I found that
> >>> some functions calle
On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 2:36 PM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 2:13 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Kyotaro HORIGUCHI writes:
>>> Then, the reason for the TRY-CATCH cluase is that I found that
>>> some functions called from there can throw exceptions.
>>
>> Yes, but all LWLocks should be
On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 2:13 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Kyotaro HORIGUCHI writes:
>> Then, the reason for the TRY-CATCH cluase is that I found that
>> some functions called from there can throw exceptions.
>
> Yes, but all LWLocks should be released by normal error recovery.
> It should not be necessar
Kyotaro HORIGUCHI writes:
> Then, the reason for the TRY-CATCH cluase is that I found that
> some functions called from there can throw exceptions.
Yes, but all LWLocks should be released by normal error recovery.
It should not be necessary for this code to clean that up by hand.
If it were neces
At Thu, 2 Feb 2017 08:46:11 +0900, Michael Paquier
wrote in
> On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 2:14 AM, Fujii Masao wrote:
> > The lwlock would be released when an exception occurs, so I don't think
> > that TRY-CATCH is necessary here. Or it's necessary for another reason?
>
> +PG_CATCH();
> +{
On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 2:14 AM, Fujii Masao wrote:
> The lwlock would be released when an exception occurs, so I don't think
> that TRY-CATCH is necessary here. Or it's necessary for another reason?
+PG_CATCH();
+{
+LWLockRelease(LogicalRepLauncherLock);
+PG_RE_THROW();
+
On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 5:36 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
wrote:
> Hello, while looking another bug, I found that standby cannot
> shutdown after DROP SUBSCRIPTION.
>
> standby=# CREATE SUBSCRPTION sub1 ...
> standby=#
> standby=# DROP SUBSCRIPTION sub1;
>
> Ctrl-C to the standby fails to work. Apply
16 matches
Mail list logo