On 10/12/23 09:58, David Steele wrote:
On Thu, Oct 12, 2023 at 12:25:34PM +1300, Thomas Munro wrote:
I'm planning to push 0002 (retries in frontend programs, which is
where this thread began) and 0004 (add missing locks to SQL
functions), including back-patches as far as 12, in a day or so.
I'll abandon the others for now, since we're now thinking bigger[1]
for backups, side stepping the problem.
FWIW, 0003 looks like a low-risk improvement seen from here, so I'd be
OK to use it at least for now on HEAD before seeing where the other
discussions lead. 0004 would be OK if applied to v11, as well, but I
also agree that it is not a big deal to let this branch be as it is
now at this stage if you feel strongly this way.
Agreed on 0002 and 0004, though I don't really think a back patch of
0004 to 11 is necessary. I'd feel differently if there was a single
field report of this issue.
I would prefer to hold off on applying 0003 to HEAD until we see how [1]
pans out.
Having said that, I have a hard time seeing [1] as being something we
could back patch. The manipulation of backup_label is simple enough, but
starting a cluster without pg_control is definitely going to change some
things. Also, the requirement that backup software skip copying
pg_control after a minor release is not OK.
After some more thought, I think we could massage the "pg_control in
backup_label" method into something that could be back patched, with
more advanced features (e.g. error on backup_label and pg_control both
present on initial cluster start) saved for HEAD.
Regards,
-David
