On Tue, Feb 21, 2023 at 09:03:27AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Tue, Feb 14, 2023 at 09:47:55AM -0800, Nathan Bossart wrote: >> Here is a new version of the stopgap/back-branch fix for restore_command. >> This is more or less a rebased version of v4 with an added stderr message >> as Andres suggested upthread. > > So, this thread has moved around many subjects, still we did not get > to the core of the issue which is what we should try to do to avoid > sporadic failures like what the top of the thread is mentioning. > > Perhaps beginning a new thread with a patch and a summary would be > better at this stage? Another thing I am wondering is if it could be > possible to test that rather reliably. I have been playing with a few > scenarios like holding the system() call for a bit with hardcoded > sleep()s, without much success. I'll try harder on that part.. It's > been mentioned as well that we could just move away from system() in > the long-term.
I'm happy to create a new thread if needed, but I can't tell if there is any interest in this stopgap/back-branch fix. Perhaps we should just jump straight to the long-term fix that Thomas is looking into. -- Nathan Bossart Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
